Jump to content

Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive 5

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

Criticism Section Needs Work & I agree... Worst Article Ever

Parts that need fixing from the criticism section:

From the genes to the social environment, interaction is the rule.[100] Evidence that genes influence behavior does not explain how it does so in any individual case.[100]"

Why do we need a sentence in the criticism section stating 'interaction is the rule?' Does that somehow absolve the criticism? What does it even mean? You can argue that sometimes interaction is 'the rule,' while at other times maybe less so... that's like saying 'its not all nature or nurture,' so lets not presume which? ...but that's exactly what EP is doing... presuming that invisible genes are the causal factors for human psychology. Critics are not so much reacting to fears of 'genetic determinism,' but that these claims are being made with insufficient logic or evidence. The second sentence does not even make sense in the context of this small CRITICISM section. Are we presuming that there IS evidence that genes have influenced behavior? Why are we then jumping to "it does not explain in any individual case," again, as if the consequences of genetic determinism was the big concern or fear for the critics... no, the critics are concerned about the lack of REASONING and EVIDENCE. But let's continue to divert attention away from that fact shall we?

What about this sentence:

"Evolutionary psychologists, in turn, accuse proponents of the standard social sciences model of political bias and argue that mind is better understood, not as a blank slate capable of learning anything with equal ease, but as a set of evolved emotional, motivational, and cognitive adaptations designed to help to solve recurrent problems of survival and reproduction in ancestral environments.[101]"

This is supposed to be a criticism section, and yet it is gets turned into a place where EP can create derogatory categories (without letting the reader know that it was invented by the EP camp), and accuse critics of something that the majority are not... political bias? cultural determinism? Looks like a red herring to me.

A couple of editors are guilty of pushing this article to be the religious wad of crap that it is. It is upsetting to me, since the layreader will not only have an inaccurate view of the field, but also an inaccurate view of the critics. The mis-citing of Darwin's works and addition of original material has been condoned, and misrepresentation of the field and its critics continues on with an unbelievable degree of tolerance. It would seem that two editors are resistant to allowing the necessary changes to occur and the others are tolerating more than I believe they should. I think I am done here. Maybe I'll pop back in 6 months or a year, but for now I think I will try very hard to stay away. Good luck. Logic prevails (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the criticism section based on the rather excellent historical overview of evolutionary approaches to psychology in Plotkin 2004 (he is definitely positively disposed to EP, but summarises some of the ciriticism in a reasonably fair way). I also stated in the definition that there is a narrow and a broad sense of Evolutionary Psychology - this has been acknowledged by Memills above, but is also explicitly stated in Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative Approaches by Scher and Rauscher.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, thanks for actually using good sources. That's a real step forward. You've finally found a book that says what you like, so bully for you! Do you think you would be able to go back into your text and get rid of all those capital letters. It's not a religion, so it's not Evolutionary Psychology. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In contrast to you I have been using actually academically published sources (some of them even printed on paper!) all along.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yikes, LogicPrevails above reveals such a deep misunderstanding of EP, no wonder he is in a tiff. The nature-vs-nurture debate is over. There are no EP genetic determinists. He conflates proximate vs. ultimte -- EP is not about genes, is it about adaptations. All in a couple of brief paragraphs. Like most of the critics, he is attacking EP for things EP doesn't say. Robert Kuzban's new book "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite" notes how common this is among critics: "evolutionary psychology is oddly subject to this type of scholarly malpractice. Martin Daly and _Margo Wilson catalog various cases in which "scholars" have not only mis-cited them, but hung views on them that are the exact opposite of their position." Memills (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That's all you can come up with? That I misunderstand your field? You are not fooling anyone with your blanket statements or your strawmen. You have made it very clear in these pages that you would grant that someone understands your field only if they accepted the core tenants. In reality, I bet I understand the theoretical underpinnings of your field better than you do. The nature or nurture debate is not dead, though it is often proclaimed to be. Your field emphasizes invisible 'distal' causes that cannot be disproven, since you allow for proximate and cultural explanations to be validated without it threatening your theory. The logic is tainted. Your arguments are weak, though your belief in them has allowed this page to be pushed into the biased piece of work that exists today. Logic prevails (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kurzban is himself 100% guilty of misrepresenting his critics, and Pinker for example is renowned for hanging strawmen up on his opponents only to shoot them down with bucksot at point blank range. As Plotkin clearly states this shrill behavior has characterized "scholars" on both sides. It only makes the matter worse when people like Kurzban point out the splinter in his brothers eye while he himself has the trunk of a sequoyah sticking out of his own.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What is "evolutionary theory applied to psychology" called?

Long-time fans of this talk page might remember an old fight between me and Maunus, et al, about the scope of evolutionary psychology. Mills and I say that EP is a broad field, touching on every field of psychology. Maunus says that EP is just one of many ways to apply evolutionary theory to psychology. I challenged him and the other detractors to name this broader field of research, to provide the name for evolutionary theory as applied to psychology, but not limited to the narrow definition of EP. No one even suggested a name for any such body of research, and I contend that there is none. If you look in Britannica, it says that applying evolutionary thinking to psychology is called evolutionary psychology. Pretty simple.

Now Maunus helpfully confirms that the larger, broader field is indeed called evolutionary psychology. So let's agree with Maunus that the term "evolutionary psychology" is what we use on this page to refer to the broad, general application of evolutionary theory to psychology. Leadwind (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Memills (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus' helpful citation isn't on the page any more, but FTR here it is. The strikethrough on my last paragraph above is Maunus' contribution. Leadwind (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
'''Evolutionary psychology''' ('''EP''') can be used in a general sense about approaches within [[psychology]] that are based on the understanding that the human mind, as the human body, is a result of evolutionary processes, and in a narrow sense about a particular research paradigm within psychology that emerged from [[Sociobiology]] in the 1990'es and developed by researchers such as [[David Buss]], [[Leda Cosmides]], [[John Tooby]] and [[Steven Pinker]].<ref>Scher, Steven J. and Frederick Rauscher (eds.) Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative approaches. Kluwer Academic Publications. p.xi-xii</ref>

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)

Comments

They were adressing what you want include in the article and were not ad hominem attacks against you. Removing the comments of another side is unacceptable and I ask you to restore them. Otherwise they can be read in my diff above.Miradre (talk) 02:55, 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)
Charming. Now, apparently, you changed the RfC from the "Religion and Philosophy" category to the (more appropriate) "Maths, Science and Technology" category. Thanks. Memills (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, if you have the time and energy, I recommend following the roadmap to arbitration. It is obvious that an RfC will solve nothing, as Memills et al. will not budge on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, you already tried that tactic against me, and it didn't go in your favor. Also, your anti-EP POV has been pretty clear Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_2#NPOV_dispute. Memills (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Memills, I have not "tried" any tactics nor do I hold any semblance of an "anti-EP POV". In fact, my edits on the subject, on this and related articles, show the exact opposite of what you claim. Memills, please stop demonizing editors who disagree with your repeated violations of NPOV. It is, after all, our fundamental policy. It's been five years of you vs. Wikipedia, and it needs to end, now. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Check this link Memills (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And what is that supposed to illustrate or argue? An ad hominem argue from well-behaved you? A character assassination from the defender of decency in academic debate?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have always advocated adding more controversy coverage to the page. I managed to get the controversy treated in the lead (over resistance), and I fleshed out the controversy section (which Maunus has also recently expanded). I seem to be the only editor who wants to cover both the controversy and EP's successes, which is why I claim the middle ground between the pro-EP and anti-EP editors. Clearly the top-level evolutionary psychology page should treat EP in general. It's not clear that the narrow version of EP deserves a page of its own, but if it does, then it's a subpage of this page. Leadwind (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) You should concentrate more on encyclopedic work. The article is really weak, and time should be rather spent on improving it to WP's standards. (2) Criticism should clearly go into the article, just as everywhere else. If it is felt that the debate should be focussed, this should be done in a second article since it would give some more space to actually improve this article.. However, there is no reason to preempt anything by insisting that criticism should go into the lede - if it should indeed go there then be objective and make this clear ("... has been a heavily discussed etc."). Clearly not a subpage, though. (3) You distinguish evolutionary approaches to psychology (including some version of "every PSY believes in EVO") from Evolutionary psychology yourself, and this article seems to be about EP. Morton Shumway—talk 05:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
  • Comment from mainly uninvolved Itsmejudith. This article should cover all of EP in both broad and narrow definitions, assuming that it's accepted that there are broad and narrow definitions. It should cover EP at all its stages. If it has been redefined or reformulated in response to criticism, that should be covered. Responses, both positive and negative, should be covered. There should not be a separate article on the controversy because that would be a POV fork. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the Evolutionary psychology controversy page as a POV fork because
* the controversies are included in the main EP page -- the Controversy page is a place to further flesh out args on both sides for which there is insufficient room or relevance on the main EP page,
* the Controversy page is a place where basically non-scientific (political, philosophical, etc.) perspectives can be explored
* the controversy itself is of sufficient significance that it deserves its own page. For example, the Evolution page does not much cover creationism or intelligent design theory, or political objections such as Social Darwinism. Instead, these are referred out to the Objections to evolution, Creationism, Social darwinism, Evolutionary theory and the political left, etc., pages.
Like evolution itself, evolutionary psychology is a lightning rod for controversy, and both of these pages would be soon be overrun with controversy to the point of being worthless. They both deserve certain special consideration given to WP pages about highly controversial topics. Memills (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream criticism of EP is not "creationism", and per WP:NPOV, criticism should be integrated into the main article in proportion and relation to the main points. It does not get relegated to a POV fork, as you have done. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As noted by WP POV Fork policy:
All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are separate articles.
Also, as noted in Articles whose subject is a POV:
Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.
The Evolutionary psychology page is a theoretical POV page (like the Evolution page, and thus a spin-off Evolutionary psychology controversy page is appropriate. In addition, the history and present state of the EP controversy is simply too large and complex to sufficiently accommodate on the main EP page. Memills (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That argument is valid insofar that it means that we should have a spinnout aricle about the controversy. It does not however support the argument that the controversy should not be summarised broadly in the main article. Nor does it mean that the main article can focus on the EP viewpoint and leave out criticism and alternative or mainstream viewpoints. The section about the controversy in the main article has to accurately summarise the spinnout article. The other subsections have to include both EP and non-EP viewpoints.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's also avoid excluding material about that EP actually says whether editors believe it is true or not. In addition, since evolutionary psychology is primarily a ultimate perspective, countering an ultimate explanation with a proximate one is comparing apples and oranges, as we have discussed. The exception would be when an ultimate explanation makes a specific proximate prediction(s) that are disconfirmed empirically. Memills (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

deleting new material

Logic deleted the new section on consciousness and (guess what) can't cite a policy to support the deletion. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to cite a policy for deletion. You need to get consensus to include material in an article. If you don't have it the material don't go in. period.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I presume you mean this revert. [3] If you want policy, how about WP:BRD.? Frankly though, the section is abysmal - It reads like a 14-year-old's homework. As for the suggestion that "large, tree-climbing apes evolved consciousness to take into account one's own mass when moving safely among tree branches", what kind of idiocy is that? Do eagles need to understand aerodynamics to fly? Facile (unless it is satire, though it seems hard to tell the difference at this point). When I started getting involved in this discussion I was sceptical about EP, but willing to listen to valid scientific arguments. If this is the best that EP can say on consciousness, I'm going to propose we add it to the 'pseudoscience' category (or possibly 'fiction'). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just find a really good source that agrees with you. Or some better explanation for how we evolved consciousness. Sources, sources, sources. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't need sources to reject bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Andy sees the point I was trying to make earlier. If you have a simple rudimentary explanation about how you think consciousness evolved and it takes 3-4 sentences to come up with that explanation, in order to counter it, you need to provide a full explanation of the summary of consciousness research outside of EP... this is going to take more than 3-4 sentences, because to non-EPers, consciousness is extremely complex. What ends up happening is EP stating these superficial, unfounded speculations, when most of the page gets dedicated to presenting the 'other side' which again, is more complexly understood. It cannot be done in a sentence or two. Logic prevails (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that perhaps we can roundabout the problem by not giving a full treatment of consciousness but limit ourselves to stating that "evolutionary psychology even hypothesises that the highest level cognitive phenomena such as conciousness have evolved to serve an adaptive function". If we want to give consciousness an entire section then we will have to include the mainstream theories of consciousness as well and that is a huge topic. If we just mentions that this iis one hypothesis among many in EP then I don't think we need a large explanation of the alternate theories - the wikilink to consciousness should suffice to give the reader a chance to explore how other disciplines have related to the topic. I think in this case adding less information is better than much because we will have to stray too far off topic by giving a full account of theories of consciousness. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind keeps bringing up policy. Let me remind everyone that before all policies comes the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that all editors must use their own good sense to determine what makes content "encyclopedic" or not, and how to make a weak or mediocre encyclopedia article a better encyclopedia article. If you can explain how adding or subtracting something makes this a better encyclopedia article, you are conforming ith the policy di tutti policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

EP is not a theory of consciousness, so why even bring it up? This is OR to the extreme. The idea that primates evolved consciousness is silly. Animals have consciousness already, on varying levels of complexity and development. The simple and well-known fact that primates can be taught rudimentary language and signing should make this clear. But, you know, we're dealing with self-anointed experts constructing entire theories of existence here. Richard Dawkins also likes Boo-Berry cereal, does that make Boo Berry cereal a part of EP? No, of course not. Speculation by related researchers does not constitute an on-topic treatment of EP. 75.73.52.0 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This brings up an important point here. To what extent do we include material? If EP makes a speculation about something, does it automatically get included? What makes EP an 'armchair expert' of all fields? I wanted to exclude the section of abmormal psychology based on the fact that it has not had ANY influence on current developments within clinical psychology, psychiatry, and etiological research on psychopathology. As was pointed out by another editor, shouldn't we just report on what claims have notable substantiation? EP has not even touched the main fields working on consciousness, yet since they have an opinion on it, we need to note it? Worse still, am I to understand that if those other fields do not deem EP as important enough to spend time refuting thier claims, do we omit any cautionary statement that would put a 'relative weight' to their claims in the context of the larger specialty fields that they want to be a part of?
I do not think the other Wiki pages work this way and I would like us to get some clarification here... if need be, by an outside editor. Logic prevails (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If the authors of an intro EP textbook think that something is relevant to an understanding of EP, then I treat it as if it is relevant (regardless of my own personal opinion, because I'm just an amateur). WP:TPA says to cover the topic from all notable angles. I see that SLR again avoids the policy issue. Predictable. WP policy is there to make editors give topics fair treatment, so those who want to be unfair have a hard time with policy. Leadwind (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Slr is right inso far as it makes no sense to discuss policy with someone who doesn't show any understanding of it and is willing to ignore statements by large groups of editors drawing these misunderstandings to his attention.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, I assume you meant to direct your insults at me, not SLR. Moving on... can I have SLR, Manus, or Andy respond to my question? It is extremely important for me. I do not know of any other wiki pages where unsubstantiated speculation (e.g. about consciousness or abnormal psychology) is deemed 'notable' and permitted to be included without some kind of cautionary warning to the layreader that these speculations may not reflect the views of those larger fields that have more substantiated research (e.g. psychiatry). Logic prevails (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no clear cut answer, it is a question of whether there is a general consensus that certain material is important enough to merit inclusion then we include it. In this case we have one editor who wants to include it - we are basically doing him a favor by considering how to include it in a waythat doesn't give it undue weight. If however we are not able to agree that there is a way to include the material without skewing the article off topic then we don't include it.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not how it works. The status quo or a particular version is not automatically the preferred one. One can equally well say that you must convince us to exclude sourced material.Miradre (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Read and understand WP:BRD Miradre. Up untill this point there was no "us" that I need to convince because several editors had rejected Leadwinds proposed change and only Leadwind had argued for inclusion. There for it was Leadwinds responsibility to convince us. Now you have arrived and if you in fact have an interest in improving this article rather than just contradict me then you should read his suggested addition and adress the problems that logic prevails and myself have identified with it, and our arguments for inclduifing the material in a different way.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, WP consensus does not favor either side in a dispute and does not state that an inclusion is less valuable than the status quo. I have looked at the material and found it interesting. Again, there should be more qualifiers to indicate when there are unproven hypothesis. Again, I do not see why WP should inlcude enormous amounts of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, with qualifiers, and not include interesting evolutionary hypothesis, with qualifiers.Miradre (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest to Leadwind to make far more use of qualifiers which may cause people to be less upset. Consider using "argue" or "suggests" in almost every sentence, even if there has been experiments, since one experiment such rarely proves something definitive.Miradre (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Miradre, you're right about consensus, and the people who want to use it to keep material off the page are not quite using the policy the way it's intended. And I have started making more use of qualifiers. Leadwind (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That is ridiculously wrong. Consensus determines everything - if there is no concensus for inclusion it doesn't go in. I urge you to go to the policy talkpage and ask whether one needs consensus to include contested material. Don't take advice from Miradre on that issue. On the other issue his advice is good: it would be a lot easier for you to get anyone to accept your inclusions if you describe viewpoints as viewpoints, not as facts.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Marxism?

More of Maunus's helpful additions. Here's a line I have questions about:

"Evolutionary psychologists have in turn accused their opponents of being motivated by Marxist viewpoints, which has also been true in a few cases, but also not in the vast majority of cases.[111]"

The reader might appreciate the names of the "few cases," at least if those are names of prominent opponents of EP. Maunus, does your source name names? I'd love to see the names for the far-right EPers, too. Leadwind (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Plotkin doesn't mention names but it should be fairly obvious that he is talking about Gould and Lewontin. He mentions one right wing EP'er who testified in a court case in favor of a holocaust denier - I don't know who that is.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the far right EP'er he mentions must be Kevin B. McDonald who testified in favor of David Irving.[4]·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Since when has 'motivation' been a valid argument in scientific debate? Or is the whole EP issue about politics not science anyway? In which case, can we have a breakdown of the political opinions of scientists in the article on Gravitation too - oh, and we'd better have their religion and sexual orientation discussed as well, just in case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Andy, you might think we should not cover this material (and honestly if I were a detractor I wouldn't want readers to know who the anti-EP Marxists were either). But it's our humble duty as editors to include what our best sources say, and they do mention the Marxism angle. Editing WP is easy and amiable if one simply follows policy and uses the best sources. Leadwind (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
So you do think that character assassination is a valid method of scientific debate? Fine for Conservopedia perhaps. I suspect that you'll find that won't wash here. And cut out the bull about 'policy' too. You know full well that merely having a source for something isn't grounds for including something in an article - it has to be relevant too. On what grounds is Marxism relevant to EP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if its a valid argument. It matters that both sides have repeatedly accused the other of being politically motivated. This is verifiable and mentioning it gives the reader a better idea of the level at which the debate has frequently been carried out. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Maunus. In the real world, unfortunately, you can't separate political views from a discipline that has 'human social characteristics' as its core interest. To suggest otherwise would be naive. There is no question that EP has a 'good fit' with the economic individualism that becomes the necessary social arrangement in complex industrial and post-industrial society. It is this economic arrangement that favours neo-local nuclear family social structure. In such societies of course you get the corollary cultural and symbolic values accompanying these. EP fits well with the 'blood is thicker than water' cultural value so particular to the US (David M. Schneider - American Kinship - 1968). BTW - only in the US does socialism have a bad name; McCarthyism is still with us. That's why its not an easy to go into. Everywhere else in the world various mixes of market and socialism are succesfully practised to greater or lesser extents. The continental European model is commonly some variation on a 'social market' economic model. Anyway, I am rambling... I am in favour of including discussion on the political leanings. Perhaps it will show no overall orientation, which would be satisfying.Maximilianholland (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I am with Andy on this one. When we dedicate space to socio-political accusations within the debate, it dillutes the theoretical debate. It becomes a red herring. I have been following the theoretical debate intensely. Political accusations remain entirely absent from intelligent (notable?) dialogue. I am not saying it should not be included, but it needs to be be given a 'relative' space within the criticism/reception section. I think the space on this page for the criticism side of the debate [space that some of us have been fighting for], should be better spent reporting on what is being debated on a theoretical level. Logic prevails (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
While I usually agree with Andy and Logic, I think the phrase "red herring" is actually the red herring here. Also, "dilute." Much earlier in this discussion someone pointed out that many of the leading works in EP are directed at a general audience (I am reporting a fact, and am not denying the fact that much EP work is also done by psychologists, anthropologists, and people in adjunct fields) and, more significantly, that work by EP seldom engages and sometimes does not even acknowledge work by people in other fields on related or even identical issues. I know of at least one independent source (which I learned of because it was mentioned by another editor much earlier in this discussion).
So the scholarly debates on certain issues (e.g. the nature of the mind, the evolution of culture) are deeply bifurcated, and much of the debate between EPs and non-EPs is of a different character than the normal debate among scientists. This article somehow has to acknowledge this.
Moreover, I think that the specific difference of opinion here reflects a cleavage in academe that must be acknowledged. My own view of this cleavage (I emphasize this because Andy and Logic may well have a very different view of this) is this: some scholars believe that to claim that cultural and social forces influence science to such a degree that they must be acknowledged, is to claim that the research in question is not authentic science. Other scholars believe no science is authentic unless it acknowledges that cultural and social forces influence science to such a degree that they must be acknowledged, is to claim that the research in question is not authentic science. The latter view is not limited to social sciences - Richard Lewontin's doctorate is in zoology, and Evelyn Fox Keller's doctorate is in physics. Nevertheless, I think the latter view is held most strongly by anthropologists, and many sociologists and historians. I once had a six hour conversation with a psychologist who unwaveringly insisted that anthropology is not a science and this was one of the issues that came up.
By the way, I am not referring to specific claims about Stephen Pinker's or Richard Lewontin's political affiliations - my point is not about "character assassination" (although I know that this happens and I share Andy's concerns with regard to this) ... My comments follow from Maximillian's invocation of Schneider's important work (although I do not think Schneider directly applies it to EP), and I am also thinking of Sahlins' important book.
It would be pointless to debate or even discuss the merits of either view. But we have to acknowledge that both views are significant. It should be perfectly understandable why anyone who holds the first view (and I am NOT trying to speak for Andy or Logic) would consider a discussion of the cultural and political scaffolding that holds up EP or its supporters, or that accounts for its popularity including among scientists, a red-herring. It should be perfectly understandable why anyone who holds the second view would consider it essential. Fortunately, we do not have to debate the merits of the views. We only have to follow NPOV which insists that all significant views from reliable sources be included in the article.
Personally, without taking sides I think that the consequences of each view - first, that we provide a clear account of the methodological and evidentiary weaknesses of EP; second, that we provide a clear account of the cultural logic that rationalizes EP and its supporters - both enrich the article. They are very different kinds of critiques, but they are both important. I think the way to resolve this issue is not to discuss which approach to take but rather what kind of organization would include both in a clear and accessible way. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
SLR, I agree with pretty much everything you stated - well said. In the advanced courses I teach, I will spend 2-3 classes talking about the cultural/political assumptions that influence the thought processes of my field (psychology). I obviously agree with the need to acknowledge those larger influences and how they can direct the so-called science. My concern is more about the weight we give it in the piece, and the order in which we present it. Since EP is wanting to describe itself as a science, I think it needs to be held accountable first and foremost by science and reason. I am not at all suggesting here that science can be separated from socio-political or cultural influence, but we need not fall into socio-cultural relativism either. If we spend too much time emphasizing the latter, then I believe we take something away from the former. I would like to see the article address more of the theoretical debate, before getting into the socio-political accusations, which in my humble opinion, should be comparatively brief. By the way, I think you make a very important point about the audience of EP - I would like to see that incorporated somehow. Logic prevails (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to rearrange or add od subtract from the reception section, to make it fit better with your perception of due weight.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there's a general sense that this material is relevant, despite Andy's and Logic's objections. Leadwind (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop trying to polarize these discussions - you do more harm than good. Logic prevails (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, how about we agree to work side-by-side from now on, putting the best information from the best sources onto this page? Leadwind (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but you should change "we" to "I." When you refer to yourself you have to use the singular, not the plural, form. Unless you are actually Queen Elizabeth. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perception and sensation, per Gaulin

In light of the response my work received, I improved it some. Here's the latest. I'm really just trying to fairly summarize what I find in Gaulin, which seems like just the sort of thing that a neutral editor should be doing. What do people think? What do you want to see more of and what less of? I don't want to polarize the editors on this page. I'd much rather we all worked together, in line with WP best practices and policies. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perception and sensation Many experts, such as Jerry Fodor, write that the purpose of perception is knowledge, but evolutionary psychologists hold that its primary purpose is to guide action.[1] For example, they say, depth perception seems to have evolved not to help us know the distances to other objects but rather to help us move around in space.[1] Evolutionary psychologists say that animals from fiddler crabs to humans use eyesight for collision avoidance, suggesting that vision is basically for directing action, not providing knowledge.[1]

Building and maintaining sense organs is metabolically expensive, so these organs evolve only when they improve an organism's fitness.[1] More than half the brain is devoted to processing sensory information, and the brain itself consumes roughly one-fourth of one's metabolic resources, so the senses must provide exceptional benefits to fitness.[1] Perception accurately mirrors the world; animals get useful, accurate information through their senses.[1]

Scientists who study perception and sensation have long understood the human senses as adaptations.[1] Depth perception consists of processing over half a dozen visual cues, each of which is based on a regularity of the physical world.[1] Vision evolved to respond to the narrow range of electromagnetic energy that is plentiful and that does not pass through objects.[1] Sound waves provide useful information about the sources of and distances to objects, with larger animals making and hearing lower-frequency sounds and smaller animals making and hearing higher-frequency sounds.[1] Taste and smell respond to chemicals in the environment that were significant for fitness in the EEA.[1] The sense of touch is actually many senses, including pressure, heat, cold, tickle, and pain.[1] Pain, while unpleasant, is adaptive.[1] An important adaptation for senses is range shifting, by which the organism becomes temporarily more or less sensitive to sensation.[1] For example, one's eyes automatically adjust to dim or bright ambient light.[1] Sensory abilities of different organisms often coevolve, as is the case with the hearing of echolocating bats and that of the moths that have evolved to respond to the sounds that the bats make.[1]

Evolutionary psychologists claim that perception demonstrates the principle of modularity, with specialized mechanisms handling particular perception tasks.[1] For example, people with damage to a particular part of the brain suffer from the specific defect of not being able to recognize faces (prospagnosia).[1] EP suggests that this indicates a so-called face-reading module.[1]

It is good that you are now vetting your proposed sections on the talkpage before inserting them. However you need to understand that something being sourced to RS does not in itself mean that it has to be included. For it to be included there has to be a WP:CONSENSUS to the effect that including it would improve the article. This means that rathe than asking us to provide an "article policy content reason" not to include it - you need to convince us that in cluding it would improve the article. In this case the question is whether EP approaches to sensation and perception are so important that they deserve their own section. I personally don't think so. I think that the material on abnormal psychology, consciousness and perception/sensation is a very small part of EP as a whole and that giving them each a section of their own would be giving undue weight to them and bring the article off its main focus. I propose that instead we write a section about "EP approaches to cognitive and clinical psychology" which includes all of this material in an abbreviated form. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Adaptationist perspectives are relevant to all of human behavior. EP is an approach, to the entire field, it is not a content area sub-discipline of psychology. There are some content areas that have garnered more attention from evolutionary researchers than others, of course.
Regarding consciousness -- there are evolutionary hypotheses re why consciousness evolved, so I see no problem devoting a brief section presenting this info (the Gaulin & McBurney EP textbook devotes an entire chapter to the topic, and there are several books and many published articles that explore this topic). The same applies to the content area of sensation / perception.
Adaptationist approaches to abnormal psych appear in at least three EP textbooks (an entire chapter in Gaulin & McBurney, and about 1/2 a chapter in Workman & Reader, several pages in Buss). Also, I believe that adaptationist approaches are covered in some recent editions of general, undergrad abnormal psych textbooks (I'll ck with some colleagues on this next week). Memills (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS does not mean that the status quo is correct or that one particular version of the article is the correct one. One can equally well say that Maunus must convince us other editors to not include the sourced content.Miradre (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Except that leadwinds addition has been criticized by several editors and is only inserted by himself. Again you are only coming here to stir the pot because I disturbed your peaceful Pov editing at the race articles. It is obvious that you have no mission here other than to oppose anything I say. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing that Wikipedia content is decided by majority voting? I do not know why you today started following me to articles you have hardly ever bothered with before and started opposing my edits and suggestions. Most likely you have your own POV, as I do, like everyone else. I know why I am interested in this article. It is because I think evolutionary explanations are important. Which should be obvious from my earlier editing.Miradre (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Where would you get the idea that I am arguing for that. You do know about our policy WP:CONSENSUS right? Why do you think I followed you to the article on the UNESCO statements of race? Because you have tried to miscredit those statements when I presented them for you in our argument at Race. I was editing article on race here before you arrived at wikipedia. I don't need to justify editing articles on race that you are converting to your own POV. You also don't need to justify being here but you do at least need to show that you understand the arguments that are being presented and the previous discussions we have had. HEre you just arrived to contradict me without knowing what I was even talking about. Not helpful.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know consensus and it does not state that the status quo or a non-inclusionist version is the prefered version. So one can equally well say that consensus must be reached before sourced material is removed. WP:consensus does not declare a particular version to be the standard that cannot be changed before everyone agrees.Miradre (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong and you are misrepresdenting policy. Read WP:BRD and reread WP:CONSENSUS (it says: Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages.) New material cannot be included if there is a consensus not to include it. This is fundamental and basic policy. Up untill this point there has been such a consensus since only Leadwind has argued for inclusion and several editors have argued against and both Leadwind and me have proposed other ways to include the material in question. present new and better arguments and consensus may change. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:CONSENSUS that states that new material has less value than old. The policy does not favor either side. I think the addition is fine with the addition that there should be more emphasis on that much of this is unproven hypotheses. Your application of WP:UNDUE is unusual. As stated it is meant for differing views, especially fringe views, and not for different aspects of the same view.Miradre (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not about new or old material it is about how the cycle of contestation works - you can be bold and you can be reverted if someone disagrees and then you discuss - you don't editwar. Weight also applies in the case of subtopics. Articles should stay focused on the primary areas of the topic - not stray into unneccsary detail. This article already has problems with staying on topic- reserving a huge section to basics of evolutionary theory that isn't requireds to adequately describe the topic. Inserting this material in its own section may well constitute straying from the focus. Or it may not. In anycase if we decide to include the material in its own section that section has to conform to NPOV and include both the EP speculations and the more common views of the topic matter in a duly weighted balance. This can all be done, but frst we need to agree on whether to do it and how.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think part of the problem may be that Leadwind makes far to categorical statements which upsets people. "Vision evolved to respond to the narrow range of electromagnetic energy that is plentiful and that does not pass through objects". That sounds like an undisputed physical law from a physics textbook. For an evolutionary theory, however likely, more appropriate would be something like "Vision is argued to have evolved to respond to the narrow range of electromagnetic energy that is plentiful and that does not pass through objects" Not sure if what the more common view is, much of the above sound like arguments medical students would read in a textbook. What is the more common view?Miradre (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
A more substantial problem is the lack of understanding of WP:BRD, so let me spell it out. Editor A adds some significant new material. Editor B removes it, specifying some reason. What happens next is that there must be a discussion where the issues are addressed. Speculation about categorical statements upsetting people is laughably irrelevant. What is needed is discussion, based on sources and policy, on the proposed new content. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Johniq. Manus has an important point Miradre... this page has a long history of not staying on topic. I suggest we work hard to do keep focused. Logic prevails (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
John says, "What is needed is discussion, based on sources and policy, on the proposed new content." Exactly. Let's discuss the proposed material in light of sources and policy. Maybe Maunus would like to start, but anyone could join in. In light of sources and policy, what do you think of the proposed material? Leadwind (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting Jophnhuniq's statement. His point was clearly that you need to stop trying to get the section into the article by force and start to consider the actual arguments that you have been presented with for why it is not includable in the form you have given it. We don't need policy to rewrite your incoherent prose. And Logic prevails has already written and presented an alternative wording. Your version is not the point of argument any more. Read Logic's proposal and find out how to improve it.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, stop the insults. Not consistent with WP Policy. You seem a bit selective of WP policies you promote when you find it fits your agenda, and ignore the ones that don't. Try to be a bit more congenial and constructive -- suggest edits or make edits to improve the material. Leadwind is providing a first, rough draft of material. It is not expected to be the final, polished version. It is expected that initial drafts will be edited and improved over time -- they don't have be perfect on the first posting. Memills (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have struck the strong characterization of Leadwind's prose - I appreciate it may have crossed the line. Regarding first drafts they have to be good enough that other editors believe them to constitute an improvement. You have also not given me the same leeway when you have disagreed with the sections I have written in the past - if you disagreed with any part of them you instantly reverted them without even starting a discussion about it. Not much congeniality or constructivity there - another pot/kettle situation. As for suggestions for improvement Logic prevails has already provided a suggestion for how to rewrite it and I have provided several suggestions to how I beleieve the material can better be presented.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you refering to the proposal regarding abnormal psychology? That seems to be another subject. Your suggestion seem to be "I propose that instead we write a section about "EP approaches to cognitive and clinical psychology" which includes all of this material in an abbreviated form." That is hardly a concrete criticism of the current material but seems to reflect you view that this gives undue weight. I suggest that we include it and that you add more material if something is missing.Miradre (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Exclusion of views

Wikipedia has articles on the most strange subjects. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and so on. They are all allowed to present their views if they are notable. Obviously with qualifiers. So why is this not allowed for evolutionary psychology? We need not claim that something is an established fact, only that it is a notable view in EP.Miradre (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Memills and Leadwind and you are the only ones interested in exlcuding views (EP critical views). Nobody else is arguing that any views should be exlcluded. We are however arguing that Leadwind cannot simply insert any tangentially related material he wishes as long as it is cited. The material needs to be agreed by a consensus of editors to be an improvement. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: the above comment was accidentally deleted. I have restored it. Memills (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It is presenting itself as a 'science.' Based on that alone, we should be including material that includes scientific hypotheses (e.g. testable), not wild speculation. If we are going to allow carte-blanche inclusion of the latter, then maybe it should go in the 'pseudoscience' section. Myself, SLR (based on a previous comment), and presumably Andy, would all agree that we should be including material that has some research behind it. Again, why is everything written by EP 'notable?'

Logic prevails (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us compare with history. History cannot easily produce falsifiable theories. Yet history still produces numerous theories about past event. EP also produces theories about past events. Yet nobody calls history a pseudoscience. Why should EP be treated differently?Miradre (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Adaptationist approaches to behavior are heuristic. They generate novel hypotheses that would not be generated from other approaches. That is notable in itself. Many hypotheses derived via an evolutionary "lens" have received empirical support, which is also quite notable. There are many empirical tests of hypothesized psychological adaptations published every month in science journals -- the empirical literature is quite substantial.
It is not so much the assumptions that EP makes about the ancestral environment that is interesting. It is the hypotheses it makes about putative evolved psychological adaptations that are proposed to be operative now that is of interest. And, many of these hypotheses about psychological adaptations can be empirically tested, and many have. Is more research needed? Of course. It most always is in any scientific field.
Given this, it doesn't matter whether WP editors believe adaptationism and its hypotheses to be true or not. The job of editors is to simply present the information. Memills (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
What is included need not be empirically verified. It can be a notable hypothesis. It should then of course be described as that and not as a fact. Lots of our science articles include notable but not proven hypothesis that are described as such.Miradre (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. A WP article on theoretical physics (or cultural anthropology, or psychotherapy) would be very short indeed if only empirically "proven" theories were allowed to be presented. Memills (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mirardre and Memills, your comparison with history is facile. Evolutionary psychology claims to be a behavioral science, while history is one of the humanities; they have different methods and different criteria for assessig valid argumns and robust arguments. Historians do not generate hypotheses as part of thir established practice, so how could you think you could compare the way EPs and historians use hypotheses? Be that as it may, historians, like anthropologists and theoretial physicists, do speculate based on aailable evience. However, Wikipedia does not publish these speculations, because they do not meet our standards of notability. If we did, our history articls would be ten tims longer than they are.

Your point that "A WP article on theoretical physics (or cultural anthropology, or psychotherapy) would be very short indeed if only empirically "proven" theories were allowed to be presented" I think will go in my file of stupidest comments presented on Wikipedia pages. I really have to wonder whether your account has been hacked ... or maybe you wrote this in haste and whn you were half asleep. Apparently you do not even know what scientists mean by the word "theory," and you certainly do not know what cultural anthropologists and theoretical pysicists mean by "theory." You also seen not to know what the word "prove" means, and at this point I have to wonder why you are ven trying to edit articles on sciences. "Prove" can mean "to test" but in this context, which began by contrasting hypotheses to findings, you seem to be using the word to signify some kind of certainty. Let me know school you, son, since you seem not to have taken any science classes in high school. "Proof" in the sense you mean is a term used in mathematics, and in that branch of philosophy called "logic." Empirical sciences never prove anything. The theory of evolution will nver be "proven." In the natural sciences a theory is a model of some portion of the universe that generates claims that correspond to things in the real (empirical) world that are measurable. These claims are called "hypotheses." A hypothesis is never "proven;" the general standard is that a hypothesis must be flasifiable; a hypothesis can be falisfied. However, if a hypothesis is not falisfid, that does not mean that it has been proven. For it to remain a scientifically valid hypothesis, it must always be possible to falsify it through some future experiment. Theories themselves are nver proven empirically; they are more or less useful, measured largely in part by their ability to generate falsifiable hypotheses. A theory that keeps generating falsifiable hypotheses, like Einstein's theory of general relativity, is a powerful thory in the sense that it is productive. Philosophers o science debate whether the theory of evolution is a theory in the same sense as the theory of relativity. It does not generate measurable hypotheses. But it does generate claims with "observational consequences" that can be tested against empirical evidence. In this sense, evolution too is a powerful theory because it continues to generate consequential claims that we can apply to a wide range of biological phnomena. But no real scientist would ever say that the theory of evolution has been proven. It is a model of the world, a representation, that generates claims which can be falisfied. "Proof" is reserved for mathematics, not empirical sciences.

So your standard is hopelessly confused, if we are witing about science. The question is not whether we limit ourself to proven theories, the uestion is hether we exclude untested hypotheses.

As with biology, cultural anthropology is a science and does not claim that any of its models have been "proven." But as with other scientists, anthropologists can make hypotheses or predictions, and anthropologists make claims that may be supported by empirical evidence. Human or historical or interpretive sciences like anthropology also use "theory" in a different sense, not as a model that generates measuarable predictions, but as models that generate questions that can only be answered with empirical data. And Wikipedia articles on cultural anthropology are not filled with the many hypotheses anthropologiss have proposed. The articles are filled with the conclusions of research, and explanations or interpretations that are supported by a preponderance of evidence.

You are right that we should hold EP and cultural anthropology artiels to the same generl standard; since you have no basic comprehension of science yo9u just are not able to explain what that standard should be in intelligible terms. The standard should be arguments (interpretations, explanations etc) that are generally considerd to be well-supported by evidence, and theories or models that have been highly productive of hypotheses or predictions that have yet to be falsified either by experiment or by comparison with the appropriate empirical data.

With regard to empirical sciences (in contrast to mathematical sciences e.g. branches of theoretical physics like particla physics) we should not spend time on theories that have not generated hypothses, or that geneate hypotheses that have mostly been falisfied, or that have generated pseudo-hypotheses (i.e. hypotheses that cannot be falisfied) or that have generated hypthses that have not been tested.

We should not spend time on hypotheses that have been falsified, unless they held sway or some considerable period of time or by the general scientific community. And we should not spnd tim on hypotheses that have yet to be tested.

These are the standards we hold for anthropology and physics articles and we should hold the same standard for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my comment, as you might discover from reading my previous comments. I was using the term "proof" in an ironic sense (since some here seem to want a higher standard of "proof" for evolutionary hypotheses). And, to add further irony with respect to your comment that anthropology is a science -- you may be aware that the American Anthropological Association recently dropped the word science from its mission statement and has aligned itself more with the "critical" and "interpretive" methods of the humanities. Finally, you apparently have not read the empirical EP literature, which, as I mentioned above, includes many thousands of empirical tests of adaptationist hypotheses. I invite you to review the content of some of the publications listed in the Journals section of the main EP page. You will find normal science being performed and reported there. Memills (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Memills, I can sympathize with the idea that EP can be method for creating new hypotheses, but unless they are 'scientific hypotheses,' it is only speculation, which presents a strong argument for excluding it from a page dedicated to "EP: the purported science." EP has [perhaps arguably] developed plenty of scientific hypotheses. THAT is what we should be including on the page. EP has also developed more than their fair share of wild speculation, hypotheses that have yet to be tested, or hypotheses that are clearly untestable. So far, this discussion involves deciding whether to include 'abnormal psychology' and 'consciousness.' It is my impression that most of the work in these areas involve pure specuation and get very little attention within the field of EP, which on both accounts would question thier 'notability' on this page. Logic prevails (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course WP has lot of speculations by historians. Just look at the Decline of the Roman Empire article.Miradre (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course WP has lots of speculations by anthropologists. Just look at Neanderthal behavior or Neanderthal extinction hypotheses.Miradre (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Miradre, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are providing examples where people have come up with competing interpretations of evidence; in the case of anthropology, the different interpretations of the evidence can still be falsified by new data. But this does not make them hypotheses in the same class as the ones that I and Logic have been referring to. There is a difference between an interpretation based on evidence and held by many scientists versus a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. The former is standard in history and natural history, and has its equivalent in the experimental sciences when you have hypotheses that have been tested experimentally many times and have not (so far) been falsified - no one objects to including these kinds of hypotheses in this article ... but a hypothesis that has been tested experimentally many times and has been repeatedly confirmed, even if it can still be falsified, is very different from hypotheses that have yet to be tested experimentally, which are the kinds I think have no place in this article. Your problem is you keep comparing an experimental science with a non-experimental science, and you make the wrong analogy. One can compare these different sciences, but one has to be careful to make the right analogies and you keep getting it wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk
Evolutionary theories are a mix of hardly falsifiable interpretations, like in history, and falsifiable hypothesis. For example, an evolutionary interpretation that sight evolved to take advantage of the narrow band of electromagnetic radiation most useful after taking into consideration the filtering effects of the atmosphere can hardly be falsified. It is an historical interpretation. It is still an interesting explanation, just are such explanations in history or anthropology, even if they are very difficult or impossible to verify. Wikipedia does not have falsifiability as demand for inclusion.Miradre (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
With regard to the explanation of sight: is this in The Evolution of Species or in an article by a modern evolutionary scientist? Can you give me the reference plase? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
In the proposed text above the reference is "Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary Psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 13: 9780131115293, Chapter 4, p 81-101."Miradre (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I am asking what the original source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Why does it matter? It is used in an evolutionary psychology textbook.Miradre (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The question we are discussing is can an article on EP be held to the same standards as other articles. One of the criticisms of EP is that unlike real evolutionary science, it does not work from predictions or hypothses with empirical consequences, e.g. that can be falsified. All you are doing is confirming that this criticism of EP is valid. If you want to argue that it be treated like other sciences, we need to look at other sciences. You cannot say that EP is comparable to other sciences by compaing EP to ... an EP textbook! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Different claims by EP should be evaluated differently. If it is making a historical interpretation, which is by its nature usually unfalsifiable, then it should be treated to the same standard that apply to history. On the other hand, if it is claiming someting about the contemporary world, then higher standards of apply.Miradre (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
And historians do not make circular claims of the kind you just described. If you are talking about non-experimental claims, scientists still requires evidence and does not accept circular arguments. It is not a question of higher or lower standards, it is a question of appropriate standards. Whether in experimental sciences, natural history, or anthropology or sociology, the standards are always high. So it is your opinion that EP has lower standards, fine. My point remains: we hold this article to th same standards as other articls. We will not include flurries of hypotheses that cannot or have not been tested, or speculation that cannot be tested. Whether anthropology or history, our articles only include interpretations that are based on empirical evidence an that can be tested in some way. We won't diverge from this standaard just for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What circular claims? I certainly do no think EP has lower standards. It has appropriate standards. When making historical interpretations, historical standards are appropriate. For contemporary claims, other standards. Wikipedia's history articles often have interpretations that cannot be tested.Miradre (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a previous comment I made relevant to this discussion: It is not so much the assumptions that EP makes about the ancestral environment that is interesting. It is the hypotheses it makes about putative evolved psychological adaptations that are proposed to be operative now that is of interest. Many of these hypotheses about psychological adaptations can be empirically tested, and many have. Some have failed empirical tests, others have survived. Some of the discussants here are betraying their unfamiliarity with the actual empirical literature related to the discipline. Read the actual EP literature, not just what some folks may have to say about it. The EP journals are a good place to start, as is most any EP undergraduate level textbook. This will quickly disabuse one of the notion that EP does not rely on the empirical methods of science. Memills (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Memills. Then we can agree tha those hypotheses that are falsifiable but that have survived empirical tests can go into the article, but the simple fact that someone has proposed a hypothesis is not enough to meet a notability requirement for inclusion. I appreciate your redirecting the discussion away from circular talk. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
As noted earlier no-falsifiable interpretations are appropriate, as they are for articles on history. Obviously simple the fact that some has suggested a falsifiable hypothesis is not enough for inclusion. But neither does it prevent inclusion. A hypothesis may be notable despite not being verified.Miradre (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The relevant questions are these: Was the hypothesis derived from theory? Is it a reasonable hypothesis given that theoretical lens? If so, I see no reason not to include mention of it, especially if the hypothesis is particularly novel, heuristic or interesting. If a hypothesis has made it into an evolutionary psychology textbook, my presumption would be that it would merit at least a mention. Memills (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus says, "Memills and Leadwind and you are the only ones interested in exlcuding views (EP critical views)." You seem to have me confused with someone else. I'm the one who forced the criticism into the lead over the objections of Mills. And I fleshed out the Controversy section, which had been very vague. Strangely, I seem to be the only editor here who wants to cover both the criticism and the successes. Leadwind (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Has everyone here gone mad?! How many times must it be stated that we are not talking about a field within the humanities, but one purporting to be a 'science.' Its hypotheses must therefore be SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES. Please, if you are unfamiliar with how a scientific hypothesis works, educate yourself before we go further. If we are going to make any EP claim notable because you can find an RS, then I strongly suggest that we make a sub-section of non-scientific hypotheses titled: "Evolutionary Psychology: Wild Speculation," or move it to 'pseudoscience.' Logic prevails (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say EP has elements of both humanities and science. When making historical interpretations they should be treated like history. When they make claims about the contemporary world, they should be treated like science.Miradre (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. Get a source for that - EP is working very hard to be a science and its critics definitely consider it as such.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. But not when they are making unfalsifiable historical interpretations. Then they should be treated to the same standard as history.Miradre (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Section on Abnormal Psychology

LogicPrevails and I are up against the 3 reversion limit regarding the subsection added to the section "Contributions of EP to traditional areas of psychology." The following passage is under contention:


Abnormal psychology
Evolutionary psychologists suggest six possible explanations for behavioral disorders, that they are defenses, side-effects of beneficial genes, consequences of frequency-dependent selection, the results of mismatches between the EEA and contemporary life, consequences of defective mental modules, and an extreme distributions of polygenic traits.[2] Some mental disorders likely have multiple causes.[2]
Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may reflect side-effect of genes with fitness benefits, such as increased creativity.[2] Some bipolar individuals are especially creative during their manic phases, and the close relatives of schizophrenics have been found to be more likely to have creative professions.[2]
Sociopathy may represent an evolutionarily stable strategy, by which a small number of people who cheat on social contracts benefit in a society consisting mostly of non-sociopaths.[2]

The above section was contributed by Leadwind. I find it acceptable, LogicPrevials does not. It is brief, and could use some additional material. However, references are provided, and, as I previously indicated, this material is covered in the undergraduate Evolutionary Psychology textbooks by Buss, and the one by Gaulin & McBurney.

For those without a background to this area of EP, or without access to these textbooks, below are a couple of excepts (from much longer material). The Gaulin & McBurney textbook devotes an entire chapter to this topic, the Buss textbook devotes several pages to it.

From the Gaulin & McBurney textbook (Chapter 11 -- Abnormal Psychology):

Evolutionary theory suggests a variety of different explanations for psychological disorders. We enumerate six causes that could pro¬duce abnormal behavior. For each cause, we mention a behavioral disorder that might be explained by it. In the section that follows we discuss each of the mentioned disorders in considerably more detail.
Possible Evolutionary Causes of Behavioral Disorders
1. Some may not be disorders, but defenses, analogous to fever or cough. Some cases of nonclinical depression may provide an example of this sort of psychological defense.
2. Some are side effects of genes with fitness benefits, analogous to sickle-cell anemia. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are possible examples.
3. Others may be the result of frequency-dependent selection . One cur¬rent theory explains sociopathy in this way.
4. Some disorders may reflect the absence or malfunctioning of a particular module, analogous to defective color vision. Some researchers believe infantile autism results from a defect in one or more modules.
6. Some disorders represent the extremes of the distribution of polygenic traits. As dis¬cussed in Chapter 3, the population will always include considerable scatter around the optimum value for any trait that is affected by genes at several loci. The extremes of such a distribution would represent exaggerated or reduced levels of normal behav¬ior and be nonoptimal, by definition. Clinical depression could represent such a case.

and, specifically with respect to biopolar disorder and schizophrenia:

(Bipolar Disorder) Studies of people in the manic phase show that their speech contains three times more rhyming, alliteration, and idiosyncratic words than normals . They are also able to do word-association tasks much faster. These are all characteristics of creativity. Those bipolars who are also creative are most produc¬tive during the manic phase. The composer Robert Schumann wrote four times as many musical compositions during two separate years during which he was manic as he did at other times. He wrote nearly 40 percent of all his compositions in just two manic years out of a 24-year career . If, in the EEA, creativity provided sufficient fitness benefits, it may have been favored despite that it also in¬flicted some costs in terms of impaired performance during the depressive phases.

Schizophrenia

...Schizophrenia occurs at about the same rate in all societies, Western and non-Western, industrialized and pastoral . Therefore, it is not a disease of civilization, nor is it likely to be an arbitrary social invention. Virtually all scientists agree that it reflects a problem in brain function, and there is strong evidence from family studies that it is inherited. An evolutionary perspective leads one to ask how such a disorder could arise and be maintained in the population. Because schizophrenia is so debilitating, suf-ferers have lower reproductive success than the rest of the population. Therefore, a gene for schizophrenia cannot be conveying a reproductive advantage in those who have the disorder. At the same time, the prevalence of 1 percent of the popu¬lation is probably too high for the disorder to be maintained in the population by mutation of one or more genes for schizophrenia. One possibility is that the gene for schizophrenia conveys some advantage on individuals who carry it but do not have the disorder. One way this could work is by heterozygote superiority . In such cases individuals who have a sin¬gle copy of the relevant allele have higher fitness than individuals who have two or none. Another possibility is that the gene for schizophrenia is dominant, but is only expressed in a minority of cases, for environmental reasons or because of in¬teractions with other genes. This mechanism is called incomplete penetrance. What could be the advantage of carrying a gene for schizophrenia? Karlsson studied a population of schizophrenics and their relatives in Iceland. He found that first-degree relatives of schizophrenics were about twice as likely as the general population to be mem¬bers of creative professions . He pro¬poses that individuals with the schizophrenia gene but not the disorder gain an ad¬vantage in creativity.

Similar passages can be found in the Buss textbook.

Also, see this website on the topic by Daniel Glass Memills (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? EP suggests 'this explanation, says that otherwise that may explain it, or possibly something else entirely is the cause... Yes, but then again none of them may be. This isn't science. Unless and until a method is proposed to determine which - if any - alternative explanation is true (or at least, is more likely to be valid than any other explanation), all that is being 'proved' is that EP can come up with multiple and contradictory explanations for anything it chooses to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, scientists never "prove" anything. They develop hypotheses, and test them empirically to see if the evidence is generally corroborative or not. Normal science stuff. If you really want to see some "just so" stories, check out cosmology. They have EP beat, hands down. But, remember, the hypothesis that black holes existed was once a "just so" story, too. Memills (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That's right, scientists don't 'prove' anything. They do however come up with testable (i.e. falsifiable) hypotheses. Not multiple explanations for a phenomenon with the only common characteristic that they are phrased in EP terminology. And the hypothesis that the Loch Ness monster existed was once a "just so" story,as well. This talk page is getting more like the astrology one by the minute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Try actually reading some research in the field. Check out the research journals list on the main page. You'll find there's a whole lotta empirical testing of alternative hypotheses. And, no Loch Ness monsters. Memills (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Possibly. That doesn't mean the section quoted had anything to do with science. 'X, Y, or Z could explain this' isn't evidence that any of them do. Shouldn't an article about 'evolutionary psychology' tell us about what it has shown, rather than what it thinks it might be able to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Evolutionary psychology is heuristic -- it is a way of generating hypotheses that may not have been considered from the perspective of other paradigms. Part of the discipline is the set of hypotheses it generates. A few hypotheses are presented in the proposed section, and some empirical evidence supports those hypotheses. Normal science -- gotta start somewhere. Is more research needed? Of course.
However, this the key point: If basically the same material about evolutionary approaches to understanding abnormal behavior is presented in two undergraduate Evolutionary Psychology textbooks, that is sufficient basis for referring to it here. It really don't matter much what either of us think about whether or not it really is or ain't so. Memills (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Andy, thank you for being a voice of reason here. MeMills, I think you need to take your own advice and step away from something you know little about. I am a clinical psychologist. I have serious concerns with what you are trying to present here and I think it is dangerous for the unqualified layperson to be reading. Just because a mental illness has certain traits that can be viewed as ‘adaptive/helpful’ from some kind of twisted reasoning, does not mean: A) that the trait in question arises from genetic inheritance, B) that it WAS adaptive in our phylogenetic past, C) that it was selected by the environment FOR those reasons that EP speculates. You are making speculative assumptions about all three; there are no hypotheses to be tested here at all. Okay, so someone diagnosed with Borderline personality disorder according to our Western DSM-IV book, has bouts of creativity… that does not in any way give support to the idea that there are invisible genetic modules giving rise to this ‘diagnosis.’ The fact that mental illnesses vary significantly when compared to non-Western cultures, should be reason enough to abandon these EP speculations. Oh right, silly me, I forgot that EP does not like to separate genes and environment… so that they can say that cultures only ‘evoke’ these dormant invisible genetic modules. Right... that way your theory stays intact and can never be held accountable for its ridiculous claims.
The textbook you quoted is equally wrong about Schizophrenia and it can be found in the first sentence. Schizophrenia DOES vary in both diagnosis and symptomatology across cultures. Just because there are ‘differences’ in the brains of Schizophrenics, does not say anything about how those differences got there – though there is strong evidence of inheritance, there is also very strong influence of cultural factors playing a mediating and moderating role. Regardless, the fact that we have reason to believe a genetic link, does not mean that we should turn to EP to offer unfounded speculations as to why that might be. When you pick up any scholarly clinical text on psychopathology, you will NOT find any etiological explanations from an EP proponent – that should tell us enough right there as to its credentials. If you want to add these unfounded statements, work them out on a temporary page or on the talk page, where I can do what is ethically warranted - adding a significant amount of material that puts these speculations into serious question. Logic prevails (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It absolutely amazes me that EP-proponents are running off with the caravan and talking about alleles and genes and speculating about schizophrenia as if we already have a gene locus and track record by which to identify, screen for or otherwise account for schizophrenia... seriously? Is this the state of things today?75.73.52.0 (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Scientists generate hypotheses like laundrey driers generate lint. Wikipedia articles generally provide readers with established findings, the current consensus determined from research. I think we should leave hypotheses out of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just humbly adding what the experts say, according to a university-level textbook. WP is all about good sources. If this information is wrong, simply find good sources that say so. Leadwind (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein. We should be reporting what EP has proven/shown, not what it speculates about. But again, this is one of the critiques of the field... calling assumptive speculations 'hypotheses' and leaving the related fields to prove them wrong - essentially, leaving others to do their homework for them. I am not comfortable with you putting this on Wiki without some kind of statement that clearly says "these beliefs are not generally accepted by clinical psychologists and there is an abundance of contradictory evidence." Stop trying to add this material before we get consensus from others. Logic prevails (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Show me a policy that says I shouldn't add the material and I'll take it out myself. I'm happy to follow policy. As for me, I just humbly add what the experts tell me is relevant, while humbly following that policies that other people have set for WP. Leadwind (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is unhelpful to try to add material without having a concensus for doing so at this point. At this point in the dispute only respect for BRD will be able to prevent this from degenerating into editwarring and the article becoming protected. I also agree that you cannot with one hand exclude sourced edits that you disagree with because that material "is better treated in the controversy article" or because it is "not from a general textbook" and then editwar to include marginal speculations because they are "sourced" with the other.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If you want to include it, let's flesh it out here first after we reach consensus that it is important and worth including in the article. Leadwind, the policy is: Consensus[5] Logic prevails (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind has it correct. The material is presented in at least two undergraduate evolutionary psychology textbooks, an entire chapter is devoted to the topic in one, so there is no reason not to include it. (For the interested reader, a list of references relevant to the topic can be pursued here). That is clear WP policy. Ironic how some of the same folks here who argue for inclusion of criticism of EP because someone, somewhere once said it in a published source, suddenly take a different tact when the material is about EP itself, sourced from several evolutionary psychology textbooks, with which they disagree.
This page is primarily about EP, and, this material is part of it. Of course, referenced sources with counter positions can certainly be added to this section. Memills (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I can see you leive and breathe Kurzban. Lets say that you can taste your own medicine and now try to have sourced additions removed untill you can establish a consensus for it. You and Leadwind follow policy when it suits your interests. Now we stick to policy on every detail. Start with this policy: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Then let's work on the section if all agree. You cannot have it sit there in cyberspace in its present form without fully fleshing it out and keeping it balanced. Also realize that this is probably going to hurt the page that is supposed to be about EP. Making these kinds of unproven assumptions means that a significant amount of information should be presented to show how it is contradicted and generally not accepted within clinical research and practice. EP is making a few assumptive speculations with few sources... apparently the other side needs to present a summary of the entire history and research on the etiology of schizophrenia and bi-polar to present the other side? Do you really want this to turn into a refutation page? Logic prevails (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Do I want this to turn into a refutation page? No, per WP policy this should be a balanced summary article that is primarily about EP, its theory, hypotheses, empirical findings, and, including mention of competing perspectives and non-corroborative empirical findings (but not long, ongoing tit-for-tat running debates).
Some editors here, including yourself, have an admitted very strong anti-EP POV, and it sometimes appears that you are working to turn this page into a refutation page. This is especially apparent when there are attempts, such as this, to prevent even the presentation of EP hypotheses and related findings sourced from evolutionary psychology textbooks. That is simply counter to WP policy. Memills (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
My only point was that it will take a significant amount of text to present even a brief summary of the most accepted understanding of Schizophrenia and Bipolar disorders, in addition to evidence that contradicts the EP claim... probably more space than the initial claim, that is all I wanted to point out. With regard to your other comments... You have admitted very strong pro-EP POV that prevents you from entertaining the other side... what's your point? You will notice that all of my edits and comments are related to accurately portraying the critics and alternative evidence to create a balanced article to help inform the lay reader. I could care less what you think or about who is 'right' or 'wrong.' You are again building strawmen. Logic prevails (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You have not evidenced any actual concern for or understanding of WP policy up untill this point. "Balance" of course means inclusion of both favorable and unfavorable notable viewpoints. You have worked very hard to keep any unfavorable viewpoints out of the article, and you have claimed the absolute right to remove material that you personally found to be based on misunderstandings of EP - even when written by scholars of incomparable repute. You now claim that you have argued for the inclusion of "competing perspectives and non-corroborative empirical findings". This a clear step forward since none of your previous arguments or behavior has corroborated this statement from you. We not attempting to prevent inclusion of anything - we are trying to make it apparent to you and Leadwind that writing this article can only be done by applying the same rules equally t both sides. You have removed sourced content claiming no-consensus, or simply denying that it is relevant. We are now doing the same. The way out is by trying to discuss and achieve a consensus about what tthe article shall and shall not include. This entails compromising. Before now you and Leadwind have both been unwilling to compromise on any single point and have not stopped short of misrepresenting the arguments and statements of others. This article is not going to progress untill you act on your recently stated interest in including "competing perspectives and non-corroborative empirical findings". This is the only possible next step in this process.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please. To the contrary, a quick perusal of my previous postings here will show the contrary. I have repeatedly indicated that while this article should primarily about EP, non-corroborative empirical evidence and counter-theories should be indeed mentioned. Here is just one example of one of my previous comments on this page: As I noted above, I think non-corroborative empirical evidence should be included, as well as brief mention of competing theories.
My concern is that several editors here have such strong negative feelings about the discipline such that we end up in edit wars about whether to include material that is covered in several evolutionary psychology textbooks! Memills (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Edits such as these[6] contradict such a statement to the point of it being amusing.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Your edits that I reverted were more inflammatory that encyclopedic. Another editor agreed:  :::::::::::::::: Such claims should be removed unless there is a source claiming this and then this should be attributed to this source. ...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)
Memills (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The edits were sourced to a textbook by a pro-EP author and to a general introduction to Psychology. What they would gain by character assasinating themselves I don't get.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that several editors here have such strong positive feelings about the discipline that we end up in editwars about whether to include mayerial that is included in several general psychology textbooks and in dozens of academically published monograph studies!·Maunus·ƛ· 16:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The page is about EP, not the [Evolutionary psychology controversy]. Were it up to you, apparently there would be so little about actual EP, and so much about what is wrong with it, that readers wold come away from the article with little substantive understanding about what EP actually says. Memills (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Again this edit [[7]] belies your characterization of my changes to the page.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, were it up to you, this page... Memills (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Aside from a moment or two of frustration, Manus has shown himself to be one of the most level-headed editors here... to the point where I would guess he offered you more patience than deserved. Were it up to you, there would be a mass censoring of reason and research that contradicts your pet theory. You push it with such religious fervor, one questions whether you are capable of presenting criticisms or counterclaims at all. Logic prevails (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Both you and Maunus have admitted your strong anti-EP perspectives. Stop deleting entire sections sourced from evolutionary psychology textbooks -- it is approaching vandalism. Instead, edit those sections to provide counter refs. Memills (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Will you please either provide a diff that shows me making such an admission or strike the above comment. Also please read WP:VANDAL to see what vandalism is an isn't and when not to accuse other editors of being vandals. Will you also please consider that you have deleted sections of sourced content yourself and then maybe read WP:KETTLE which details how effective communication between pots and kettles can take place.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to your comment above, where you responded to my suggestion that you had a negative perspective on EP: I have never said I were unbiased. If you do not hold a negative perspective on EP, then, my apologies -- I withdraw the comment. 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memills (talk • contribs)
Noone is unbiased. This[8] is the only statement I have made of my personal viewpoint regarding EP.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
See the comment I have added there. No one here is suggesting that EP should be used to support Social Darwinism or commit the Naturalistic fallacy. But, we also should be careful to avoid the Moralistic fallacy as well. Memills (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Give me some time and I will work on this section if you insist it get included. But again, it needs to be balanced. This is extremely frustrating really. EP can come up with ridiculous unfounded speculative claims and are not at all held accountable for them, while the other fields have to step in show them the other side that they fail to look at. You cannot apply that process to writing on Wiki - it is irresponsible and is against policy. We need consensus, and as far as I can tell, you don't have it yet. Again, give me some time and I will be happy to add it in a balanced way. Logic prevails (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I will also be happy to include it in a format that incorporates mainstream accounts consciousness and of the causes behind psychological illnesses. These are both topics where EP has definitely not cornered the market yet, and where there is a large body of existing non-EP knowledge that needs to be taken into account. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Have fun. A couple of friendly caveats. Keep in mind that EP focuses on ultimate (evolutionary) questions, not proximate ones. A proximate explanation doesn't necessarily challenge an ultimate one (unless it challenges a proximate prediction of an evolutionary hypothesis -- e.g., that bipolar disorder is also generally correlated with creativity).
Of more relevance would be: what other, alternative, evolutionary explanations compete with those proposed by EP researchers? Memills (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It is of course correct that a proximate explanation doesn't necessarily invalidate or conflict with a distal one. But I think that it is likely that we will also be dealing with varying interpretations of data - e.g. is there a general agreement that schizophrenia in fact correlates with creativity?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
MeMills, I think you and I will disagree (yet again) on a few points. When you (and other EPers) see cultural, environmental, or "proximate" explanations, you conveniently imagine them as capable of 'evoking' some hidden genetic adaptive module that has yet to be proven, because you assume that the important building-blocks of the mind/brain are domain-specific and modular. But for most of us non EPers, cultural, environmental, or proximate explanations instead provide evidence of a domain-general, flexible, and plastic neurobiology... something that you explicitly deny or ignore in your modular assumptions. So, it would seem to me that our interpretations will at times differ according to our divergent views of human neuroscience. Logic prevails (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's have as the working hypothesis that we are able to achieve agreement by each being willing to compromise.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Great. But, if I am not part of the discussion, don't take it personally, folks. I may be temporarily banned due to Viriditas' complaint. (I'm counting on you, Leadwind... ;-) Memills (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If you get blocked for editwarring that is nobody's fault but your own.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am working most of today, but I will post a draft suggestion for the abnormal section (here) within 24hrs. Thanks for the patience. Logic prevails (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the issue is policy, not editors' personal opinions. What's the policy that says we should exclude this information? Logic suggests "Leadwind, the policy is: Consensus," but that's a misunderstanding of consensus. Basically, when defenders of a minority POV can't find actual policy on their side, they claim consensus. If you can't assemble good sources for one's side, one can always assemble a number of like-minded editors so that it's the editors' opinions that (seem to) count rather than the sources. But the way that we come to consensus is by referring to policies. So, what policy says not to include this information? Leadwind (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy says that content disputes are best solved by discussion and consensus. As to including 'information', what exactly does the section in dispute tell us? It says that EP can offer several contradictory hypotheses regarding Abnormal psychology, but no proof of the validity of any of them, and little evidence that the hypotheses are even based on a valid understanding of the topic they cover: not exactly a prime example of the scientific process at work. Frankly, if I was trying to bolster the reputation of EP, this is the last thing I'd want to see in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
And the way we discuss and reach consensus is to follow policy on what goes in the article. So, what's the policy that says we should delete this? You say, "Frankly, if I was trying to bolster the reputation of EP, this is the last thing I'd want to see in an article." OK, but who's trying to bolster the rep of EP? I'm just humbly putting onto the page whatever I find in the best source I have at hand. That's just regular old neutral editing. If my additions expose EP as a joke, then so be it. That's not my concern. Leadwind (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I would propose something like this:

Abnormal Psychology

Adaptationist hypotheses regarding the etiology of psychological disorders are often based on analogies with evolutionary perspectives on physiological dysfunctions (see in particular, Nesse and Williams' book Why We Get Sick).[3] Several possible adaptationist explanations for both physiological and psychological disorders are presented in the table below. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that some mental disorders likely have multiple causes.[4]

Possible Causes of Abnormalities from an Adaptationist Perspective

Summary based on information in Buss (2011), Gaulin & McBurney (2004), Workman & Reader (2004)

Possible cause Physiological Dysfunction Psychological Dysfunction
Functioning adaptation (adaptive defense) Fever / Vomiting

(functional responses to infection or ingestion of toxins)

 Mild depression or anxiety

(functional responses to mild loss or stress)

By-product of an adaptation(s) Intestinal gas

(byproduct of digestion of fiber)

 Attention deficit disorder(?), sexual fetishes(?)

(possible nonadaptive byproducts of psychological adaptations)

Adaptations with multiple effects Gene for malaria resistance, in homozygous form, causes sickle cell anemia Adaptation(s) for high levels of creativity may also predispose schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder

(adaptations with both positive and negative effects, perhaps dependent on alternate developmental trajectories)

Malfunctioning adaptation Allergies

(over-reactive immunological responses)

 Autism

(possible malfunctioning of theory of mind module)

Frequency-dependent morphs The two sexes Personality traits and personality disorders

(may represent alternative behavioral strategies dependent on the frequency of the strategy in the population)

Mismatch between ancestral & current environments Modern diet-related Type 2 Diabetes More frequent modern interaction with strangers (compared to family and close friends) may predispose greater incidence of depression & anxiety
Tails of normal (bell shaped) curve Very short or tall height Tails the distribution of personality traits (e.g., extremely introverted or extroverted)

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may reflect a side-effect of genes with fitness benefits, such as increased creativity. It has been noted, for example, that some individuals with bipolar disorder are especially creative during their manic phases, and the close relatives of schizophrenics have been found to be more likely to have creative professions. It has been likewise suggested that sociopathy may represent an evolutionarily stable strategy, by which a small number of people who cheat on social contracts benefit in a society consisting mostly of non-sociopaths.[5]

It should be noted that the above speculations have yet to be developed into fully testable hypotheses, and a great deal of research would need to be done to confirm their validity.[citation needed] Clinical psychology and psychiatry have remained largely uninfluenced by the field of evolutionary psychology.[citation needed] Therefore, the etiological speculations of evolutionary psychology must still pass the scrutiny and demanding research criteria of these larger disciplines to find wider acceptance.[citation needed] While there is strong research to suggest a genetic link to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, there is significant debate within clinical psychology about the relative influence of cultural or environmental factors, and how they may nonetheless play a mediating or moderating role.[6] For example, epidemiological research suggests that different cultural groups may have divergent rates of diagnosis, symptomatology, and expression of mental illnesses[7]. There has also been increasing acknowledgement of culture-bound disorders,[8][9] which may be viewed as an argument for an environmental versus genetic psychological adaptation.[citation needed] It might also be noted that while certain kinds of mental disorders may have psychological traits that could be viewed as ‘adaptive,’ as a whole, these disorders typically cause those afflicted individuals significant emotional and psychological distress, and negatively influence the stability of interpersonal relationships and day-to-day adaptive functioning.[10]

What do others think? Logic prevails (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall it is a huge improvement, I have added some citation needed and page number requests. I also think that it could do a better job of introducing the topic which would make the text flow better. I would start by writing something like "EP has also proposed evolutionary explanations for several psychological disorders ..."·Maunus·ƛ· 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add pages... I will have to run back to the office in the morning to grab those texts again and note the pages.
Just a thought... do we really need a citation to say that the speculations of evolutionary psychology regarding abnormal psychology have not been an integral part of the current fields of clinical psychology and psychiatry? Doesn't it suffice to look in the DSM-IV or graduate level clinical psychology/psychiatry texts and find it absent from those pages? Logic prevails (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the wording, the current wording I think is so strong that it would need to be supported by a quote. It could probably be rephrased in a way that doesn't come off as a statement of absolute fact.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I added some cn tags, like Maunus. The first two paragraphs could use more fleshing out, too, but we can leave that for now. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a summary table based on the info in several evol psych textbooks. I will also work to add a bit more content later. Memills (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Does no one else see a problem with where this is going? If you want to build a whole section about EP's assumptive speculations regarding 'Abnormal Psychology', then I would like a very clear statement indicating that these speculations have thus far remained unproven and have not been accepted by general clinical psychology and psychiatry... there should be no 'softening' and no 'citation needed.' Mental illness is a very serious topic and misinformation can be dangerous.
Another option would be to present 'the other side,' which as I have stated numerous times, will take an enormous amount of room to do it justice - it would end up overtaking this page, which is supposed to be about EP. Logic prevails (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is about adaptationist perspections on abnormal psychology, not about treatment. There are books that specifically focus on treatment from an evolutionary perspective. You might check out a couple of these (I have a couple, but have yet to read them):
* Textbook of Evolutionary Psychiatry. Martin Brüne, 2008.
* Evolutionary Psychiatry: A New Beginning -- Anthony Stevens & John Price, 2nd ed. 2000.
* Darwinian Psychiatry, Michael McGuire & Alfonso Troisi (Author) 2nd Ed., 2000.
Memills (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anything is gained by adding the comparison between physical sideeffects of adaptions and psychological ones in table format. The same information can be easily presented in prose format.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The table makes much easier to see the analogy being made between physical and psychological disorders, and the putative causes. I use a similar table when teaching this material -- seems to help the students better grasp the concepts. Memills (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It didn't help me - I had to read it several times before I understood what was the point of comparing short height with extrovert personality. I disagree with the inclusion of the table, but if there is a consensus for including it I won't insist of course.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to add a bit more info to the table -- see if that helps. Memills (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is all he question marks, "possibles" and "maybes" - it makes EP look like a science-wannae, rather than real science. Surely your method cannot be "If psychologists were physicists, what would they think ..." and then use that to produce hypotheses or theories! Reasoning by analogy is the opposite of moden scientific thinking. Let's stick to the actual science. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, can we please get consensus to report on the more scientific claims? I vote that we exclude the table. If the table was presented in the source, then you might have an arguement. However, tables are meant to summarize large chunks of information... I somehow doubt there is much scientific information in those statements. It also makes it difficult to present 'the other side', which will be necessary to create a balanced view for some of these claims. Overall, I would vote to keep this out - it is not scientific and leads to unfortunate misunderstandings.
As a bit of comedic relief, I should mention that I once had an anxious patient tell me that their previous therapist told them that the REASON they felt the urge to defacate when anxious, was because "the foul smell would adaptively repel potential predators from our evolutionary past." I suspect their that their therapist was an evolutionary psychologist. Logic prevails (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
LogicPrevails -- as you know, theories of psychotherapy are extremely speculative. Many have a far less empirical orientation than does EP. Which psychotherapy theory do you prefer? Is it because it has clearly won over the others in empirical tests, or do you prefer it for other reasons? Should WP articles on various psychotherapies not include their speculative hypotheses, too? Is the defecation hypothesis above any more speculative than other ones that might be offered by other theories? Actually, some animals and insects do defecate when under attack as a defense. The skunk is probably one of the best examples of this adaptation. But, you facilely dismiss it as a reasonable hypothesis?
The entire field of abnormal psychology is pretty darn speculative. Is the DSM based on any coherent theory of abnormality? No. Is there one generally accepted theory of abnormality? No. Yet you want to dismiss evolutionary perspectives because they are "too speculative?"
Have either of you actually read any published articles or books that look at abnormal psychology from an evolutionary perspective? Seriously, this is not intended as a put down. The Gaulin & McBurney "Evolutionary Psychology" textbook devotes an entire chapter to this topic. Would you be open to reading it? Or, is this material to be dismissed because an evolutionary "lens" is not your preferred theoretical paradigm?
Next week I will check to see if evolutionary perspectives are covered in some recent editions of abnormal psychology textbooks. I will report back. Memills (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Logic, "Yes, can we please get consensus to report on the more scientific claims?" Here's a suggestion. Since we're just amateurs, let's just find out what the experts say and cite them. Then we don't have to fight over whether to agree with the experts. Leadwind (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reception Section (used to be Controversy section)

This section could use a re-write. The impression I get is that there are many ideas that are simply thrown at the wall, seemingly with the idea that maybe some of them might stick. It reads like a conceptual food fight. I am afraid that most neutral readers with little background in this area would come away from this section basically confused. Some criticisms are made that are mostly of historical interest (the Marxism reference comes to mind -- Gould and some other critics were self-described Marxists, but who cares?). The vast majority of EPers are not political conservatives -- never have been. Some of the more silly criticisms would be easily dispatched by EPers by showing that they are misconceptions -- not something that EP ever proposed. All of this makes the more substantive criticisms are more difficult to pick out from the rest. Also, the EP response to the more substantive criticisms is missing. Overall, this section needs to be tightened up, made more understandable, and refer the reader to a more fleshed out discussion on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page. My intent here is not to banish critiques, but to improve this section so that it is more readable, balanced, and substantive. Something that a reader could come away from saying, hummm... that's interesting, rather than, "Huh? ...what the heck did that mean?" Memills (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to work on it some more, but I wonder if we could just stay focused on the other issues first? Logic prevails (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus's new material correctly describes the controversy as having more than one side, and I'd be inclined to keep it. As long as we're adding material from RSs, that seems like a step forward, and I'm not concerned if it's not perfect. But it should be called Controversy because that's what it's about and that's what the subpage is called. Leadwind (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be titled "Controversy" rather than "Reception." The latter implies first reactions -- and I'm sure Maunus and LogicPrevails would be more inclined for this section to be about an ongoing controversy. Also, I do believe the section needs some additional work. Memills (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The section does need work. But when editors add cited material to the page rather than deleting cited material from the page, I like to encourage that positive behavior, even if it's not perfect. Leadwind (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

consensus

According to WP:CCC, 'Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions.'

When editors can't find support for what they want to do in policies or guidelines, they will sometimes refer to consensus. They might say, You can't make that change unless we consent. But that's not what the consensus policy is for. Leadwind (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another good bit, "When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement rather than citing 'no consensus.'" So when Maunus was reverting my additions because I didn't have consensus to add them, it would have been better if he had been able to state the actual disagreement. Leadwind (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we are now explicitly referring to our consensus policy, editors might like to read this page: Don't revert due to "no consensus." This is where we read 'Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit.' Since Maunus was reverting my edits on the basis of "no consensus," maybe he might like to restore the material, now that the consensus policy is clarified? Leadwind (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another useful page is WP:WHATISCONSENSUS? Leadwind (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are being obtuse and you are misrepresenting policies again. You have been presented with multiple arguments for why we have rejected your version, it is not going to go into the article in the form you have given it. Stop trying to force that through and start working to improve it so that other editors can accept its inclusion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, I think you are misconstruing things a bit here. No one is necessarily objecting to you adding sourced material (though in this case, I do). The fact that we are trying to figure out how we might do that should be supportive evidence to that claim. The issue is that you added A LOT of material (might I add that most of it is from a single source) and editors have concerns about it going in there in that kind of format. We are trying to figure out how to do the SIGNIFICANT rewording and re-working to make it Wiki-worthy. There is also significant concern about whether the material is notable, which is an issue independent of consensus. Logic prevails (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What is your alternative proposal?Miradre (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Logic, I hope you're right. It sure sounded to me like Maunus had been saying that the policy he was using to revert my material was consensus. But now that we all understand consensus, there will be no more confusion on that point, and we can work side-by-side to get more material on the page. Leadwind (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Consciousness

I'm trying to neutrally summarize material from an EP textbook. Isn't that the sort of editing that a neutral editor should do? The following section was my summary of Gaulin's chapter on consciousness. Gaulin thinks that consciousness deserves a whole chapter in a textbook on EP. I'm just an amateur, so I am in no position to disagree.

Consciousness

Consciousness is likely an evolved adaptation since it meets George Williams' criteria of species universality, complexity, [11] and functionality, and it is a trait that apparently increases fitness.[12]

In his paper "Evolution of consciousness," John Eccles argues that special anatomical and physical adaptations of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness.[13] In contrast, others have argued that the recursive circuitry underwriting consciousness is much more primitive, having evolved initially in pre-mammalian species because it improves the capacity for interaction with both social and natural environments by providing an energy-saving "neutral" gear in an otherwise energy-expensive motor output machine.[14] Once in place, this recursive circuitry may well have provided a basis for the subsequent development of many of the functions that consciousness facilitates in higher organisms, as outlined by Bernard J. Baars.[15] Richard Dawkins suggested that we evolved consciousness in order to make ourselves the subjects of thought.[16] Daniel Povinelli suggests that large, tree-climbing apes evolved consciousness to take into account one's own mass when moving safely among tree branches.[16] Consistent with this hypothesis, Gordon Gallup found that chimps and orangutans, but not little monkeys or terrestrial gorillas, demonstrated self-awareness in mirror tests.[16]

The concept of consciousness can refer to voluntary action, awareness, or wakefulness.[16] However, even voluntary behavior involves unconscious mechanisms.[16] Many cognitive processes take place in the cognitive unconscious, unavailable to conscious awareness.[16] Some behaviors are conscious when learned but then become unconscious, seemingly automatic.[16] Learning, especially implicitly learning a skill, can take place outside of consciousness.[16] Evolutionary psychology approaches self-deception as an adaptation that can improve one's results in social exchanges.[16] Sleep may have evolved to conserve energy when activity would be less fruitful or more dangerous, such as at night, especially in winter.[16]

I understand that there's no consensus to add this material, but we also know that "no consensus" is never a reason not to add material. As Johnuniq says, now we should have a discussion about sources and policies. What do people think of my source (university level textbook on this page's topic)? How does this summary match the expectations set by policy? NPOV says to include all notable viewpoints found in RSs. How could this material be improved? Leadwind (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"NPOV says to include all notable viewpoints found in RSs." You do not yet have consensus that these views are notable. Logic prevails (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Let us also note that there is not a consensus that the material it not noteworthy. Consensus does not declare the the statue quo to be the default version and does not favor anti-inclusionism. It is neutral regarding both sides.Miradre (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
If a topic is covered in evolutionary psychology textbooks, and especially if that topic has warranted several pages or an entire chapter of coverage, that by definition is notable. The test of notability is not the opinions of EP editors, but of the notability of the topic by experts in the discipline. Memills (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, a RS does not necessarily make something notable. How big is 'consciousness' and 'abmormal psychology' research within the field of EP?
Again, it is my impression that both 'abmormal psychology' and 'consciousness' are only in the speculative stages of EP's attention and that they have yet to develop scientific hypotheses and substantive research regarding those topics. If this field is truly a science, then we should leave these topics out until EP has addressed them by the standards of science. I will again state my opinion that if we are going to acknowledge any RS, including non-scientific speculative hypotheses, then we should be moving this page to be listed as 'pseudoscience.' Logic prevails (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Should psychotherapy be categorized as a science? Which psychotherapy theoretical orientation do you prefer? Should various schools of psychotherapy be labeled on WP as "science" or "pseudo-science?" Which ones are which? There is no such WP category or label. And, these are not really relevant questions. I've read the EP literature, and it is normal science. Hypothesis generation and empirical testing. You may have a different understanding. Again, the notability of a topic area within EP is determined by the experts in the field, not WP editors. Memills (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
"I've read the EP literature, and it is normal science. Hypothesis generation and empirical testing." It is not normal science - it is speculative assumption(e.g. phylogenetic adaptation and CNS modularity) based on poor logic , which is THEN, and only SOMETIMES, used to do empirical research. Science without logic is blind. If a scientist believes the brain were made out of jellybeans, then when they interpret the research, they will do so in a way that fits that belief. It will still be wrong. Now you want us to speculate about the kinds of jellybeans in the mind without even doing research at all... sounds like pseudoscience to me. I wish you 'experts' would stay on your own turf and leave topics like the abnormal stuff to people who are.
"Again, the notability of a topic area within EP is determined by the experts in the field, not WP editors." If it is notable by your EP 'experts,' then there should be substantive research pertaining to both 'abnormal psychology' and 'consciousness.' It should be beyond 'speculation' if these experts claim to 'know' anything by the standards of science. Logic prevails (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, I invite you to examine the actual published EP literature, rather than rely on second hand sources. Check out the Journals section on the main EP page, or any undergraduate EP textbook. Normal science there -- that is really beyond serious contention for anyone knowledgeable about the EP research literature. Ironically, your own field, psychotherapy is as, if not more, speculative than EP. Memills (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You are both arguing about a topic that is not very relevant. It doesn't matter whether EP's views of consciousness are scientific or not. It matters what sources say about them. Logic prevails in order to criticize EP's views of conscious you need to present some sources that provide critiques of EP statements on consciousness. And Memills: we cannot limit "expert" to mean "person who agrees with EP" anyone who has a PhD and has published on the topic of Ep is an expert, whether they agree with the idea's of EP or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The salient point in this discussion is not claims about psychotherapy, but the claim that EP is a normal science. Memills, you just pointed out in a section above that a good place to look is peer-reviewed journals. If EP has developed operational scientific hypotheses and these have been tested and survived, the main indicator in normal science is that the claim follows a trajectory from the claim being mentioned with very few citations of work by the original tema publicizing the hypothesis, to the claim being mentioned with many citations to show the number of articles by different teams publishing empirical studies reproducing and supporting the claim, to the claim being published with no citations at all when the claim is no longer questioned or contested by anyone. EP is relatively young and many of its claims may not yet have reached the third stage, but the second stage would satisfy my own understanding of notability or significance. If a hypothesis has garnered enough attention that more than one independent paty took the time or even received funding to reproduce the experiment, and if it has suvived multiple tests, we should give it serious attention. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
EP is a broad field. As I have noted before, certain content areas of EP are at different levels of empirical validation. With respect to consciousness, no one knows much of anything, but hypotheses abound. I see nothing wrong with a brief section that throws adaptationist hypotheses about why consciousness evolved into the fray. Memills (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would not object to a small statement about EP's take on consciousness, as long as we can insert a balanced discussoin of it. I am having more of a problem with the abnormal section. Logic prevails (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Being mentioned in an evolutionary psychology textbook certainly qualifies as citied in a reliable secondary or tertiary source.Miradre (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to suggest that a hypothesis need not have a prerequisite of already being subject to empirical tests to be notable. They could be novel and not yet subject to empirical tests. Or they could simply be reasonable hypothesis. By analogy, string theory is a reasonable hypothesis that deserves mention in theoretical physics although it has not yet been subject to any empirical testing.
As I noted above:
The relevant questions are these: Was the hypothesis derived from theory? Is it a reasonable hypothesis given that theoretical lens? If so, I see no reason not to include mention of it, especially if the hypothesis is particularly novel, heuristic or interesting. If a hypothesis has made it into an evolutionary psychology textbook, my presumption would be that it would merit at least a mention. Memills (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I am glad you brought up string theory. You will see on the wiki page, in the very first paragraph, the following statement:
"The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, which a theory must do in order to be considered a part of science."
If consensus is to add this material, we should have a similar statement, perhaps in the very first paragraph if editors do not want to keep the more speculative claims in its own section. Logic prevails (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Consciousness page has no such disclaimer. No reason to include something like that on the Consciousness section of the EP page. I think most folks already know that there is currently no scientific explanation for consciousness, but do know that there are some notable hypotheses. Despite being obvious, I certainly have no problem including a mention of that in the Consciousness section. Memills (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
According to policy, a view is significant (what editors have been calling "notable") if it has prominent proponents. The EP approach to consciousness has prominent proponents. QED. So there, now that we've shown that this material is significant, is there any policy-oriented objection to adding it? Leadwind (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a section

I propose we write a section with a level 2 heading titled "Evolutionary explanation and general psychology" or something similar. The greater part of EP I think we can agree is dedicated mostly to explaining issues that are of obvious evolutionary relevance: kin relations (child/parent relations etc.), sexuality (jealousy, rape etc.) and competitive behavior (cheater detection, aggression etc.) - these are the areas where the most prominent findings of EP have been made. These are not phenomena that are of much interest to cognitive and clinical psychology, uut it is true that EP has also worked with introducing evolutionary explanations to most of the phenomena that are of concern to the cognitive and clinical branches of the discipline. The proposed section would be aimed at explaining how EP presents alternative approaches to phenomena that have traditionally been of concern to mainstream clinical and cognitive psychology such as emotions, abnormal psychology, consciousness, individual differences, etc. Many of these issues have only been the subject of hypothesisation/speculation with few actual empirical studies. This does of course not mean that we cannot include them. I think a large section with subsections for the relevant topics where the EP theories can be discussed along with the mainstream approach would be a good way to give the reader an overview of the ways that EP approaches the topics that have traditionally been treated in clinical and cognitive psychology, and hence to show how Ep differs from other approaches.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a fair compromise. Keep the more 'speculative' stuff in its own section. Still, I think when EP starts invading the turf of other disciplines by offering speculative opinion that contradicts more substantive findings, we need to present 'the other side' to keep it balanced and the layreader informed. I would not want the layreader to think that EP may be more influential in these areas than is the case (I am thinking specifically about the abnormal section). Logic prevails (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Partitioning this page into more or less speculative areas is not an appropriate distinction, and I have never seen it done on other WP pages. As I noted elsewhere, some areas of EP, such as consciousness, are more speculative than others. But on one knows much about consciousness, so I see no problem including speculations from an evolutionary perspective re why consciousness may have evolved.
EP is not a content area, it is a way of thinking about the entire discipline. Ultimate analyses are generally not in competition with proximate ones (most of psychology is proximate). They ask different questions: how? vs why? They can be compatible and eventually integrate (ex.: the integration of attachment theory (proximate) and EP (ultimate)). The proximate / ultimate distinction is very important to understand to avoid confusion, and I'm afraid that confusion is manifest in places on this Talk page. This is not a turf war.
Like the Evolution page, EP is a theoretical POV. This page should describe how an evolutionary theoretical lens offers different and novel insights and hypotheses that can be applied to the entire discipline -- including perception, consciousness, cognition and abnormal. Evolutionary explanations do not replace or necessarily compete with or replace proximate psychology. Evolutionary psychology hypotheses are in competition primarily with other alternative evolutionary hypotheses.
"EP is not a content area, it is a way of thinking about the entire discipline." ... and apparently other disciplines as well. Logic prevails (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This page is not a general overview of psychology -- it is only about evolutionary/adaptationist approaches to it. Memills (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record this isn't intended to partition the article into areas according to speculativeness. I think it makes sense to treat these topics together in their own section because they are topics where EP is working on themes that other branches of psychology also work with and where they differ - and because these are not the traditional core areas of EP. This is a proposal for a specific way of organizing the content - AND a proposal for a way to include the content we have been discussin above in a more coherent way that will make the article itself more coherent. If you were writing an introduction to EP wouldn't you treat these topics in together in a chapter? ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The material regarding different content areas is currently following a pretty useful organizational structure -- lower to higher social system level. Specifically, the content is focused first on Individual Level Adaptations (emotion, cognition, personality, etc.), to the dyad (Mating), to families (Parenting), to larger kin groups (Interactions with Kin), to non-kin groups (Reciprocity -- Interactions with Non-Kin), and Culture. Most EP textbooks and overviews use this system structure to organize the chapters.
And, for content areas that fall outside of these areas, we have a different heading: "Contributions of evolutionary psychology to other areas." Currently under that heading is Evolutionary Developmental Psychology. Evolutionary Approaches to Abnormal Psychology would be an appropriate subheading as well. Memills (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked, this was a wiki page, not an EP encyclopedia. I think "Evolutionary Approaches to Abnormal Psychology" is a bit generous since the "approach" amounts to little more than speculation and has received comparatively little attention by 'EP experts.' If that is what we are including, it should be noted as such. Logic prevails (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
As I noted in a section above: The entire field of abnormal psychology is pretty darn speculative. Is the DSM based on any coherent theory of abnormality? No. Is there one generally accepted theory of abnormality? No. Yet you want to dismiss evolutionary perspectives because they are "too speculative?" And, for your reading pleasure, a couple of publications by Randy Nesse that might be worth a read:
* Nesse, RM: Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health.
* Nesse, RM: Evolutionary explanations for mood and mood disorders. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Mood Disorders, edited by Daniel J. Stein , David J. Kupfer, and Alan F. Schatzberg, American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington DC, pp. 159-175, 2006.
Memills (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Those articles read as though they were written by a high school dropout. I will do what most of clinical psychology and psychiatry have presumably done: roll my eyes and try to ignore it. Let me just point out one thing I found interesting: "D. Murphy and Stich (2000) take the DSM to task for its atheoretical approach and suggest distinguishing disorders that arise from brain abnormalities from those that arise from normal brains exposed to novel environments. They propose categories based on the PRESUMED [emphasis added] modularity of cognitive design." Let us look at the definition of presumed:
1. Take for granted that something exists or is the case
2. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary
I dislike the DSM-IV more than you would guess, but at least it is based on a wealth of etiological and epidemiological research. The DSM-IV has also been scruitinized over the course of many years by countless researchers and clinicians of various backgrounds familiar with psychopathology. In comparison, EP has a bunch of speculative theorizing. It does not matter. Clearly there is more material on this than I would have guessed (though I still would not view it as a "major area of EP research")... I suppose it needs to be included. Quite frankly, I could care less about the consciousness section, but if we are adding a lot of the abnormal stuff, be prepared to have it flooded with 'alternative interpretations' from more substantiated research from clinical psychology and psychiatry... in addition to my insistance that unsubstantiated speculation be clearly identified as such. Logic prevails (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The "high school dropout" holds these titles at Northwestern University (see his webpage: Professor of Psychiatry, Professor of Psychology, Research Professor, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, Director, Evolution and Human Adaptation Program. Better tell him that his line of research is a pseudoscience and a waste of his time. And, that he needs to learn to write good. Memills (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's not insult our RSs because that leads to insulting each other. If one of us proposes an RS that's wrong, then another will be able to provide an RS that corrects the error, so there's no need to get personal. Let's break out bad habits and work together to improve the page. Leadwind (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Since we're not experts, I propose that our sections roughly match the table of contents of an EP textbook. After all, actual experts have already decided what material to cover in a an overview of EP. We don't know better than they what to include. If EP textbooks have chapters like "Evolutionary explanation and general psychology," then we should, too. If not, then we don't really need it. Leadwind (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
According to one of my colleagues who teaches abnormal psych, evolutionary perspectives on abnormal psychology are also covered in recent editions of some abnormal psychology undergraduate textbooks. Seems notable to me. Memills (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It is notable, and it should be included. The question is how to include and how much weight to assign it relative to the other parts of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

notability

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article."

Some editors who don't want to include certain material from an EP textbook say that it should be excluded because there's no consensus that it's notable. I get what that means, but that's not WP policy; see above.

The question of whether to include material doesn't relate to notability but rather to weight. If you think that the material on perception is not "notable" enough to include, maybe a better way to say it might be that it doesn't deserve that amount of weight on the page. Then we can compare how much weight the section gets on our page to how much it gets in our sources. Our coverage should be comparable to the coverage the topic gets in our sources. Please see WP:WEIGHT.

Since we're not experts, how about we humbly include whatever the experts say to include? That's WP policy and it's neutral editing. In my case, I'm tying to summarize material from an EP textbook onto our EP page. What could be more neutral than that? Now that we're working side-by-side, like Logic says, maybe we should all try! Leadwind (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All correct. It is getting increasingly difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that that some editors here have such antipathy toward evolutionary perspectives that they apparently do not wish them to be presented. Memills (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That is a thoroughly-misleading characterisation, Memills. It isn't "evolutionary perspectives" in general that editors are sceptical about, but the particular approach advocated by proponents of EP - hardly surprising some of the half-baked hypotheses being advanced to 'explain' human behaviour. For a credible scientific theory to be notable, it first has to be credible - otherwise it isn't science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Let's hope it isn't so. But, if it is, let's hope it does not become widely known." Memills (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
So that is your only response? Infantile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, let's not fight. Let's try to work together to improve the page. Leadwind (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding in new material

I believe the discussion regarding the criteria for adding material has been well explored and has run its course. We are unlikely to get full consensus on most anything here, however, it is clear that this material is fully sourced, and, it is notable as evidenced by its coverage in evolutionary psychology textbooks. These new sections are basically first drafts. They are likely to be improved both in terms of content and prose over time. Eventually, as more new material is added, some of these sections may grow large enough to warrant spin off pages that explore a specific subtopic in more depth. Memills (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that we can go too far astray if we're adding material from EP textbooks. If we can concentrate on how the RSs describe EP, maybe we can get past our individual opinions and agendas, and work together side-by-side. Leadwind (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice please

I have no expertise in EP but am a keen student. I have a question to ask you guys who are in tune with the subject. It seems to me that a good launching pad for the subject of EP, something to 'grab' the new student, would be to subject our senses (especially sight, hearing, smell, taste) to an EP analysis. Topics like language acquisition and altruism though fascinating seem to me to be exceptionally complex and 'difficult' - they are deeply set in the mind. Which is all well and good but the senses somehow seem closer to our basic biology (while they also engage the mind) and can be readily grasped by the newcomer as they are our primary means of accessing the external world. To give specific examples, there are obvious simple questions to be asked about our senses like: why does my/our sense of smell recoil at the smell of vomit, faeces, putrescence and dead flesh; why do I hate the taste of things that are extremely acid, bitter or sweet; isn't it amazing that my/our sight allows us to discriminate different objects in our visual field - some of which, like the shape of a spider or snake, can elicit fear - and aren't we lucky to see color; why do I/we see light waves of only a certain wavelength and hear sounds only within a given wavelength? Questions like these (and there are many more relating to the senses), it seems to me, must clearly be answered in evolutionary terms. Surely this is core EP, maybe a starting point for EP - yet I cannot find any papers or discussion along these lines in the EP literature. If you can point me to any I would be very grateful. I may be mistaken in my thinking - perhaps there is something about the senses that make them unsuitable EP material. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. As an editor I feel the article is shaping up well but eventually I think it needs reducing. The introduction and overview tend to repeat the same material. Sections of the overview are repeated in "Related Disciplines" which, in turn, could be merged with "Origins of evolutionary psychology". The "General evolutionary theory" is OK but it needs a clearly stated justification when evolution is discussed elsewhere. The "History" is also a legitimate topic for a new article (and again it contains material included elsewhere in the current article). This might seem a little presumptive and harsh but all I am suggesting is a thorough copyedit - which you probably realise is needed anyway and will tackle once all the topics are in place. Thanks for your patience. Granitethighs 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have argued for tighetinging the structure of the article so I agree with your general sentiment. I agree with the repetitiveness especially and I would also like to see a better flow between sections and subsections (as well as withing the sections). To me there is a choppy feel to the entire article that makes it more difficult to read than it needs to be - it has the appearance of having been written piecemeal by inserting single phrases and single sections at a time, when someone finds a new iinteresting piece of information. Perhaps the proposal will be better received coming from you, since I am now being stereotyped as "someone who just want to remove all the most important information about EP and insert only criticism".·Maunus·ƛ· 02:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Granitethighs, I just added our first draft of the subsection "Sensation and Perception." Check that out. The questions that you asked about why certain stimuli are inherently disgusting (vomit, feces) or pleasant (sugar, orgasm) is an excellent one. And, as you note, the ultimate answers to these questions are really at the core of EP. (See the book Why We Feel for a very excellent discussion of this.) There is recent research on these topics that is not yet covered in the subsection. Hopefully, someone will add in this material soon.
I also agree with you and Maunus that there is some redundant info that needs to be removed, and, overall, the prose needs to flow better. I guess this is pretty typical in the evolution of WP pages (yes, pun intended) -- most start out pretty choppy and awkward. Over time, hopefully, they become more polished. The current structural outline of the article does not need change -- it is pretty good in my opinion. However, flow within and between sections could be improved. Memills (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I will try to get hold of Why We Feel . At face value sensation appears one part of the subject that could be tackled fairly thoroughly and in a (relatively) non-controversial way.Granitethighs 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree. There is plenty of evidence for neurobiological modularity in lower-level systems dedicated to sensation and perception. Logic prevails (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Granitethighs, or reminding us that our work on this article is all about developing something that serves the reader. Sometimes we work on structural problems with the article, but often we find ourselves fighting over controversial topics instead. Leadwind (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary economics

What exactly is the relation of evolutionary economics to EP? I assume that there is one, but that it isn't stated clearly in the section inserted recently by MEmills. Which EP textbooks discusses it and can we make the section state its connection to evolutionary psychology more clearly? Could we perhaps make it cohere better with the rest of the article, so that it doesn't stand out as a single small section with no obvious connection to the general flow of the article?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a brief subsection of "Contributions of evolutionary psychology to other areas" that gives a basic definition. Interested readers can then go to the linked main Evolutionary economics page if they wish more info. Memills (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think readers would be more interested if they were somehow shown that the topic is relevant to the tpoic of EP which they are reading about? Do you consider it good writing to introduce topics without stating their relation to the rest of the text?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the section is really just to note the existence of evolutionary economics, and direct the interested reader to that article. I presume that of the readers interested in EP, a few would also be interested in evolutionary economics. I am sure that there are more recent articles that specifically use some of the info garnered from EP. Not my area of expertise, tho, so I would encourage any interested WP editor to look into it. I do know a econ prof colleague who uses an adaptationist approach in his research -- I'll contact him to ask for more info / refs. But, would agree that this should be kept a very brief section -- additional material should mostly go on the evolutionary econ page.Memills (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The way to achieve that effect is traditionally to use a link to the article in a See also section. Not by gratuitously adding a section about an unrelated topic that the reader may or may nmot also be interested in. Articles are about one topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that unless and until it can be shown that evolutionary economics has been influenced by EP specifically, rather then by evolution-related science in general, the section is unnecessary. This article has become overloaded with peripheral topics already, IMO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I will check with some economics colleagues this week re this, and do some lit searches. If I cannot produce sources that specifically use EP material in a line of research, I will remove the section. Memills (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I will allow myself to remove the section now and place it here on the talk page untill those references are found.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Economics

Main article: Evolutionary economics

Evolutionary economics is a school of economic thought that is informed by evolutionary biology and psychology. One of the major contributions to the emerging field of evolutionary economics was the publication of An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change [17] by Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter. They propose that economic changes are subject to evolutionary processes that provide the generation of variability variation, inheritance or self-replication, and selection. The subject draws on the non-equilibrium economics principle of circular and cumulative causation. [18]

Quotes and sources

mainstream views of EP

"Theoretical Issues in Psychology: An Introduction - by Sacha Bem and Huip Looren De Jong. 2006. Sage. p. 230-1

Social Darwinism again -- amazing. Heck, if you want to bring the debate to this Talk page (not sure it is appropriate), check out the comment below. Kind of a silly game tho, who can find counter-quotes? The surprising thing is that Maunus apparently doesn't want EP to be presented -- he wants it to be dismissed. These long, drawn-out debates are far more appropriate for the [Evolutionary psychology controversy] page, not this page. Memills (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop lying and start reading. I am presenting this source because it is a textbook' inroduction to Psychological theory and this is how it represents EP. You are hollering that EP is the majority and a mainstream view. This shows otherwise. Your inclusion of proEP apologetic quotes dismissing the criticts with facile strawmen adds nothing. NOWHERE have I argued that EP should be butchered but I maintain that the article needs to reflect sources from BOTH CAMPS. Not only EP apologists. I am not tarting a debate here I am provided sources that you and Leasdwind deny the existence of that show unequivocally that EP is not a mainstream view. and that the critics are not simply to be brushed off as Fringe viewpoints but in fact constitue at least HALF of the profession of Psychology. Also don't insert Kurzban's crap into my sections. make your own. And no the critics do not belong in a separate page per WP:NPOV which s a basic pillar of wikipedia but which you apparently do not get after five years of editing - it has to be treated in the main page·Maunus·ƛ· 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You just accused me of lying. Amazing.
And, you moved text out of this section, to one below, without consulting me because it is 'your section?' Again, amazing. And, this is the second time you have done so, despite requests (above) to refrain.
As clearly evidenced by this Talk page, there isn't enough room on the main EP page to deal with the critics mis- and dis-information, and the claims / counter-claims. That is why both this page, and the main Evolution page, refer to other pages where essentially political (e.g., "social darwinism," etc .) controversies can be fleshed out. Memills (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I accused you of lying because you were lying about what I have said and what is my aim in discussing here. I have stated many times that I am interested in representing all notable view on EP. I will retract the accusation if you retract the lie, and refrain from misrepresenting my views and stated opinions again. And yes, the space is limitd in the main page, this is however not a reason to leave out the criticism. It is a reason not to waste time providing background information on evolutionary theory that is covered in other articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Check it out -- criticism isn't left out of the page. There is a section devoted to criticism, which itself links to an entire page devoted to EP-related debates for the interested reader. Further, the criticism on the main EP page can't be simple "hit and run" one-sided attacks -- the EP response to what they perceive to be inaccurate or misinformed criticism deserves coverage as well. There is enough space on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page for you to really explore these debates in depth. The fact that you don't add much material there where debates can be fully explored is puzzling. Instead, your intent seems to be to "improve" the EP page by deleting material or by dismissing EP as false and even malicious. Memills (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
More lies. I have added material not removed it. You have removed my additions of sourced material because there are particular kinds of criticism that you don't like. I am not dismissing EP - you don't even know my personal opinion of EP. I have completely limited myself to reporting criticism from reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, you and I could have some great times over at the Evolutionary psychology controversy page. We would no longer be at loggerheads over whether the main EP page is being turned into a debate page. On the Evolutionary psychology controversy page you can really flesh out the arguments of critics, I can provide the EPers counter-claims, and it would be great fun for all to watch. Wadayasay, pardner? Memills (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That will be a pleasure as soon as I get this page to conform to the basics of WP:NPOV. Please try to read WP:POVFORK once, and I really hope you will understand that it is not possible to shut one perspective out of the main article. It needs to be represented in a more comprehensive way here. That is where it is at. I'll be happy to flesh out the criticism over there when I get you to understand this basic fact about wikipedia's editing policy. Please please please try to understand that I am not interested in showing any of the two sides to be right and the other wrong - what I am interested in is that both arguments are neutrally represented in the main article and in the controversy article. This is possible - but not if one side is excluded from the discussion. There is a double standard going on here: if somebody criticises EP they are a "detractors" and their views don't count or belong here (even if they actually consider themselves evolutionary psychologists), but if a source agrees with Buss/Tooby/Cosmides/Pinker's basic tenets it is somehow more neutral? Thats not the way it works. Neutrality is achieved by describing both views without stating a preference for either. It is that basic. I am sorry that you feel that critics of are turning the the debate into a political issue and it shouldn't be that, but that doesn't matter for wikipedia. What matters is that some people are framing the issue as a political one and we need to describe that. We are not saying that EP'ers are Social Darwinist or Racist - we are saying that this is a recurring criticism. Because it is. Kurzban himself recognizes this. I realize that you believe that science and politics are separate things, but they have never been separate, and as long as people discuss them together they cannot be separate in wikipedia. Read the FA about Charles Darwin it has sections on political implications, about social darwinism and eugenics. Darwin never supported that, but it is still relevant to understand why people talk about Darwin as they do. It is also relevant for the wikipedia reader to understand why every EP textbook is defending itself against claims of supporting anti-social politics. They won't be able to understand that unless we tell them that this discourse exists. In the main article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, quite frankly, I don't believe that you are an unbiased participant. No, I am not calling you a liar--this is simply my perception. This is based on your edits, and your heated comments to me and to other editors here on this Talk page. And, your recent revisions to the Controversy section of this page is a case in point, and was also noted by another WP editor above. The language used was inflammatory, not encyclopedic. And, if I recall correctly, you are a cultural anthropologist. I don't have to tell you anything about the intense, ongoing academic animosity between cultural and evolutionary anthropologists.
EP is a science (although you may disagree), and while non-scientific disputes with the field do deserve a brief mention, they don't deserve a lot of space on a science page. Further, inflammatory accusations that EPers make claims that in fact they do not make (see Kurzban's excerpts below) are really not worth coverage. EPers are not racists, right-wingers, genetic determinists, etc. Including this stuff as if these are claims that should be taken seriously is inaccurate and misleading. It is also misleading to suggest that connectionism is a competing evolutionary theory to EP. It isn't -- it is a proximate approach rather than an ultimate (evolutionary) one.
This page should include criticisms (it does); yet it should not be over-run by non-scientific or misleading criticisms, nor should the page be turned into a debate page, with running disputes at every turn on matters political, philosophical, religious, or whatever. A lot of folks think they have a good understanding of modern evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology, but they really don't. They may have it partially right, or they may have an inaccurate caricature, yet they believe they are qualified commentators. In addition, evolutionary psychology, like evolution, is a lightning rod for non-scientific controversy because it has implications for human nature and human self-definition. Like the special dispensations offered on the Evolution page because of intense controversy, the EP page also needs some level of "protection" to avoid being overrun by critics.
Of course, serious scientific criticisms, both theoretical and empirical, by those who do have an accurate understanding of evolution and EP, certainly merit more than just a mention on this page. Memills (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have never said I were unbiased. I don't need to be unbiased because I am not inserting my opinions into the article but opinions sourced to professional and respected scholars in the field. That is why we have our NPOV policy to enable biased editors to write neutral articles. That is why we need to follow npov. You have an obvious bias yourself - are you able to lay that aside when you edit?·Maunus·ƛ· 11:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Memills, where do you get off telling people they are biased when you have an admitted COI on this subject? Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, my bias is to help to edit this page so that it is an accurate reflection of the discipline, such that EPers themselves would actually recognize the information here, and deem it basically accurate. As I noted above, I think non-corroborative empirical evidence should be included, as well as brief mention of competing theories. However, what makes this page a magnet for mutually frustrating disagreements among editors is that (a) it is a lightning rod topic (as, or more, controversial than evolution itself), and (b) most people think they know enough about EP to contribute here (many don't). This is a deadly combination for a WP page. It tends to attract editors who already have strong visceral feelings against the field, and/or, what they have read or heard about EP is from sources that, often, have presented a seriously misinformed overview of the field (Buller or Gould comes to mind). Then, armed with that "knowledge," WP editors come over here with and they believe they are doing everyone a favor by inserting it. The editors here more knowledgeable about EP then must volunteer their time to remove or correct the clearly incorrect stuff. The first editor is then outraged at the second editor, and, the edit wars ensue... Oh, if only EP was non-controversial, or, so obviously technical that only those who had mastered the basics felt qualified to edit. (I would opt out of editing a technical WP page on, say, immunological disorders or quantum theory, because I know I just don't have a sufficient background in those fields.) The blogs of Robert Kurzban or Jesse Bering regularly take on misunderstandings of the field (often by those who really should know better). Again, that is why I suggest editors of this page grab one or two undergraduate textbooks on EP to get up to speed first. Memills (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Memills, your complaint about uninformed interlocutors falls flat when you recommend that people just buy a textbook, as if that will help. The primary controversies surrounding EP have to do with hyper-adaptationism and strict cognitive modularity- both position within cognitive psychology which themselves are not mainstream in that discipline. You're not going to get this from a textbook. A 101-level textbook will not give editors the latent environmental understanding of present controversy. That isn't their job. A textbook will not point out that hyper-adaptationism and strict modularity are not the "settled science" EP claims them to be. Ignoring all the hub-bub about political critique (which I agree are straw-men), how do account for the response to critiques on strictly scientific grounds? (ie: the mechanisms of evolution are unclear at the social and psychology level). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, you kind of make my point. A reading of any undergraduate level evolutionary psychology text book (not a general psych 101 textbook) will quickly disabuse anyone that EP is hyper-adaptationist. This is one example where critics of EP are disagreeing with no one (see Kurzban on this in the next section below). And, it is an excellent example of how some critics have managed to persuade both many social scientists, and the public, that EP believes things that it doesn't. All EP textbooks emphasize George Williams' cautions on adaptations: they are onerous hypotheses that require substantial evidence of unexpected complexity, functionality, and species universality. Lots of traits are byproducts of adaptations, or random variability. This misunderstanding of even the basic EP concepts and perspectives is exactly my point.
Your continued use of the loaded term "social scientist" is a thinly veiled attempt to slight the credentials of scientists, and invoke a non-existent divide between pyschologists-in-general, and EP or cognitive science- when no such qualitative divide exists. This is nothing more than sneering. Of course, the question of just how byproduct behaviors exist without naturally-selected domain-specific modules selected for over a period of evolutionary pressure to solve problems is well... I don't know, sort of a game of pick and choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
With respect to modularity, I don't think that there is any evolutionary theory that would not predict functional modularity. If you know of one, let me know. (There are no functionally non-modular systems in the body, and I'm not sure how there could be in the mind.) There is disagreement within EP about how many, and how general, functional modules are. There may be some disagreement as well regarding the degree to which certain modules are either obligate (pretty similar among folks given typical environmental variability) or facultative (more variability given typical environmental variability).
This is really breath-taking. Whether or not you would or wouldn't know something seems beside the point, don't it? I mean, you act as if neuroscience is just sort flailing about in the wind; and challenge someone to argue against your inability to conceive of something that wouldn't predict functional modularity? As if that whole ball of wax doesn't exist? This is exactly the sort of misrepresentation of the stakes of the issue that get people so riled up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Final comment. Some critics suggest that EPers believe that they have "proved" something. Like all scientists, they never use such terms. They have what is at core essentially a mathematically-based theory (inclusive fitness) and derive hypotheses from that, and derivative sub-theories. They then go out and test their hypotheses. Even what now appear to be empirically well-corroborated hypotheses may ultimately turn out to be wrong, or slightly wrong.
Yes, yes I know, some do this and some do that. I don't know about these shadow people. It simply evident from your comments here that you are aping Kurzban's retort to Gould and others, and have confused psychological critiques of EP with those critiques of a "social science" background. You're just assuming then, that "social scientist" is some category of scientist that EP gets dumped on by, and well, the *real* scientists all know better- even though the massive debate about EP rages within psychology and cognitive science and neuroscience, collectively. Even though MMH is debated within EP itself. Even though medium modularity and peripheral modularity or mixed modularity are all on the table. But I guess we're just left with sneering about the supposed capabilities of those darn "social scientists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, just one more comment. Most social scientists, given their lack of training in evolutionary approaches to behavior, have some difficulty making the distinction between proximate and ultimate levels of analysis. They may think that by offering ultimate hypotheses EPers are denying the relevance of proximate explanations. They aren't. The two explanations, when correct, are not competing hypotheses, they are complimentary. Increasingly, EPers are interested in evo-devo, how developmental trajectories affect the operation of psychological adaptations that, in a more proximate sense, affect the manifestation of behaviors. The integration of EP and Attachment Theory is an example. Memills (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Your liberal use of "some" "most" or "they" regarding the alleged qualification of psychologists is the sort of special pleading that doesn't establish anything. The distinctions between proximate and ultimate are well known and taught. You can't just dismiss people because "they" are allegedly "not well trained in distinguishing between ultimate and proximate cause". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.52.0 (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Unsigned, please insert your comments after those of the last comment to which you are referring. Readers otherwise will not know who authored what. Memills (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Memills, we've heard this a thousand times from other single-purpose accounts.[9] Meanwhile, we're here to write an encyclopedia using WP:NPOV as our foundation. I understand you don't agree with it and refuse to follow it, but it is best for you to either find other things to work on or confine yourself to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Again.
No, really.
Memills (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurzban's view

This is the text that I inserted in the section above (that Maunus moved from 'his section' to here). Memills (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

From Robert Kurzban’s book “Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite" -- relevant to EPers responses to critics.


When I was a graduate. student, I had, in retrospect, a Pollyanna-ish view of the way science worked. I thought that scientists read others' papers, evaluated the logic and evidence, and ran experiments to test their ideas against competing ideas. I thought publishing was the way in which arguments were made and settled.
And I actually still think that is how many scientists go about their business. But not all of them. The problem is that in science, there are big benefits to be had in being strategically wrong. It comes down to this: Scientists make a splash by making discoveries, figuring out or finding out something that no one else knew before. ...To make a splash, you have to persuade others that that the idea is new, even if it isn't; To do this, the press secretary in one's head can be strategically wrong, 'believing" the idea is new and portraying it in this light. Then, consumers of the idea—editors, other scientists, and the public—can thereby be made to think so as well. I'm not saying that these people are lying—I'm saying that, by design, the press secretary modules are getting it wrong.
...I suspect this happens in many fields, but I can speak only to the areas I have contact with. I offer a few examples here, which might seem like inside baseball, but I present them because it's the area I know best and because my field, evolutionary psychology, seems to be especially subject to this particular version of attack.
...evolutionary psychology is oddly subject to this type of scholarly malpractice. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson catalog various cases in which "scholars" have not only miss-cited them, but hung views on them that are the exact opposite of their position.
...Stephen Jay Gould was an absolute. master of this sort of thing. Anyone who read him could not doubt his intelligence. ...But he was strategically wrong in truly spectacular fashion. Gould, with Richard Lewontin, wrote a heavily cited paper published in 1979 in which they argued that natural selection resulted in not just adaptations—the complex organized functional parts of organisms—but also by-products, the side effects of adaptations. So, for example, belly buttons aren't adaptations—they have no function—they're side effects of umbilical cords, which do have functions. Using an architectural metaphor, Gould and Lewontin referred to by-products as "spandrels," which are the triangle-shaped spaces where arches meet one another on the ceiling. To me they seem sort of like an arch's armpit. Gould and Lewontin's point was to illustrate that things with functions have nonfunctional parts.
Gould continued to pound the table about this for decades. He wrote piece after piece insisting that biologists recognize that evolution leads to not just adaptations, but also by-products. As Gould became aware of my field, he insisted that we, too, acknowledge by-products, writing that one of our problems was "a failure to recognize that even the strictest operation of pure natural selection builds organisms full of nonadaptive parts and behaviors."21
That's all well and good, except that evolutionary psychologists already believed what Gould was trying to "persuade" them about. My favorite piece of evidence on this, and there are so many to chose from, is from a chapter by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, two of the main targets of Gould's pen, who wrote, eight years before Gould's chapter appeared, "In addition to adaptations, the evolutionary process commonly produces two other outcomes visible in the designs of organisms: (i) concomitants or byproducts of adaptations (recently nicknamed "spandrels"; Gould & Lewontin 1979); and (2) random effects."2 Not only is it clear that they think that there are by-products, but they cite Gould and Lewontin's paper and even use their metaphorical term.73
I think its not that unlikely that Gould selectively read or skimmed the sources he was critiquing—I'm sure he was a busy guy—and the press secretary in his brain maintained a representation of the ignorance of his interlocutors that was "justified" by the limited information it received. He remained strategically wrong, and his reputation in the public never really seemed to suffer.
Why?
...Gould was writing for lay people, who probably quite reasonably assumed that the people in Gould's sights actually wrote what Gould said they wrote.. As long as no one did any checking, he could spin whatever tales he wanted—another juicy irony given his penchant for accusing others of spinning "just so" stories—with no worry of being found out or called to account.
John Maynard Smith and Ernst Mayr, two hugely important figures in evolutionary biology who, outside of the scientific community, hardly anyone has heard of where heavily critical of Gould. Maynard Smith wrote in 1995 that Gould was giving the public a "largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory,"4 but such critiques didn't really matter. Gould's strategic errors, painting himself a defender of a completely sensible view in opposition to views held by no one, was thoroughly effective. He died famous, wealthy, and wrong.
...But really Gould and Marcus haven't got a patch on the more recent critic of evolutionary psychology I mentioned above, David Buller. In late 2008 he wrote a brief article in Scientific American leveling the usual criticisms at the field. The article is filled with so many misrepresentations that it's hard to know where to start. I think my favorite part is when Buller writes: "Some human psychological mechanisms undoubtedly did emerge during the Pleistocene. But others are holdovers of a more ancient evolutionary past. ..." He implies that evolutionary psychologists think that humans sprang out of nowhere during the Pleistocene, and that it never occurred to us that some modules predate recent evolution. While this is quite silly, it can be effective as a way to suggest that evolutionary psychologists are unsophisticated in the way they think about the history of the mind.
Being strategically wrong is a good—by which I mean "effective," certainly not "moral"—strategy when the costs of being wrong are low and the strategic advantages—when persuading others of whatever it is that you're wrong about—are high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memills (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, the blogs of Robert Kurzban or Jesse Bering regularly take on misunderstandings of the field (often by those who really should know better). Memills (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica Online confirms that Gould's work was criticized by other scientists but doesn't go into detail about his campaign to discredit evolutionary psychology. Leadwind (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
More strawmen. This writing is not even scholarly. The first sentence: "when I was a graduate..." should be a dead giveaway. He is taking both Gould and Buller out of context (probably because he did not take the time to read them). Their point is NOT that 'EP does not believe in by-products/spandrels,' but that it is an almost impossible task to know what they are... which makes it even more challenging when it comes time to account for the multitudes of variables that could exist in the environment and even harder, or even impossible to control for such variables when it comes time to do experimental hypothesis testing.Logic prevails (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"it is an almost impossible task to know what (byproducts) are"... no kidding? Check the table on the main page defining the differences. Traits that are evolved adaptations have unexpected complexity, reliable functionality and species universality; traits that are byproducts or random variation do not have these characteristics. Umbilical cord (adaptation), belly button (byproduct), innie or outie belly button (random variability). Memills (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not talking about visible belly buttons. We're talking about presumed genes that are invisible and unmeasurable. "Unexpected complexity" presumes an expectation of what you intend to find, which is a very bad way of doing science, but your field is full of it. We have plenty of 'unexpected complexities' that are universal and can be easily argued as having arisen by environmental influences. Logic prevails (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"Environmental influences".... ahh. Environmental influences alone don't create behavior. The environment must interact with biological mechanisms, or nothing happens. Further, people don't behave randomly; their behavior is only a very, very thin slice of ways in which they hypothetically could behave, but don't. Memills (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what point are you trying to make MeMills, other than diverting attention away from the one I am making about your unknowable/untestable byproducts?Logic prevails (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I don't know what you are talking about. What are unknowable/untestable byproducts, and why are they of relevance? Most EPers are interested in psychological adaptations, not byproducts. Memills (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me help you out a bit here... EP acknowledges, as you point out, that there are such things as spandrels/by-products. By definition, it would be near impossible to know [when talking about a human mind, not bellybuttons], whether they are themselves an 'adaptation' or a 'by-product/spandrel,' then EP should have no business trying to guess which is which, or ignoring alternative interpretations that could be a by-product. Language is a perfect example. You assume that just because language is 'adaptive' and is cross-cultural, then it must have evolved for whatever reasons you then go on to argue. But language could just as well be a by-product of other underlying neurobiological mechanisms. Logic prevails (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive fitness, evolutionary psychology and refutation: wither falsifiability?

Published research exists which clearly and resoundingly refutes a central narrative of EP - that inclusive fitness theory predicts that human beings are adapted to bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives. Since inclusive fitness plays such a central role in EP, especially popular versions of it, I believe that it is right and proper that this research should appear in the article about EP. I did make an edit a day or two ago to include this refutation, but I found this was quickly and heavily cut-down and watered-down by Memills. Surprised at this, I have now taken the time to read through this talk page and understand the political (as in power) dynamics behind the EP article. That Memills would want to water down the refutation now makes sense. I would call on all who have an interest in this EP article (including AndyTheGrump, leadwind, logic prevails, Memills, Maunus, Slrubenstein, Viriditas, and others) to support the inclusion of reliable, verifiable and published research that is pertinent to EP's falsifiability. Whilst I am delighted for my edits to be tidied up and improved upon, please think carefully about your responsibilities to the free flow of relevant information before removing significant content of the refutation or substantially watering it down. I will again make an edit of the main article to make this refutation clear. I will attempt to do so in the appropriate section/s using appropriate language. I would appreciate reasoned and reasonable justification, rather than simply e.g. 'moving material to more appropriate section' as a cover for deleting it (and/or other shenanigans). Please support this effort to elevate falsifiable science to prominence within this article. Many thanks. For the record, I did my doctoral work at LSE (the birthplace of Hamilton's rule) and am a professor of anthropology, though not quite of the vintage of Memills. Maximilianholland (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we find some support for the assertion that this published research is notable? Is the researcher an acknowledged expert in the field? Do secondary sources refer to this research? As Maunus likes to point out, we should rely mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones. You might personally be certain that the research is definitive, but are there other experts in the field who agree? Leadwind (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
hi Leadwind, thanks for your points here. That question depends on your definition of "other experts in the field", but the short answer is yes; other experts in the field agree, and yes; the researcher is an non-famous though acknowledged expert in the field. The peer reviewers of the research 'who agree' include Christina Toren (a British professor of antropology & psychology) and Elliott Sober (who was president of the international philosophy of science association 2003-2005, amongst other prominent positions). I think the status of these folks (especially Sober) speaks for itself. I don't believe that the fact that this is primary research should detract from its relevance or value here, as it is freely (in the sense of both; free speech and free beer) available to download and read, or source from academic libraries. On 'Notable', I think the relvant WP guideline is here Wikipedia:Notability:
  • Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below... These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list.
I think the content is certainly "worthy of notice". On whether the researcher is an acknowledged expert in the field - I think any academic would say that someone who spends five years and a PhD intensively analyzing how inclusive fitness theory has been interpreted and applied to human social behaviour, and published a 110,00 word PhD with over 300 cited references on the topic, would be considered an expert. As a note, key aspects of the interpretation of inclusive fitness theory were checked with Richard Dawkins, Steve Frank and Alan Grafen before submission for peer review. I think the approval of those guys carries some weight. I'd be glad to hear what you think, many thanks. Maximilianholland (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Your material was challenged and the discussion hasn't ended, so I took the liberty of re-removing the material you restored. Would you have a secondary source that either references the dissertation or says the same thing as the dissertation? WP is primarily based on secondary sources. Leadwind (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Liberty goes both ways. Above you write Do secondary sources refer to this research? As Maunus likes to point out, we should rely mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones. I have made my points about the support and verification this theoretical position has received. I am not clear about the precedent for and definitiveness of we should rely mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones. Please could you direct me to the relevant WP guidelines on this? I would also like to hear what others have to say about this edit. Hope you would too. Many thanks. Maximilianholland (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Leadwind, you have a clear history of including those sources that fit with your preferred view while excluding other notable views. It has been exhaustively stated that this is against wiki policy. Logic prevails (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the para in question from the article to here (below) for review:
Most of what is now labeled as sociobiological research is now confined to the field of behavioral ecology.[citation needed] A key reason why sociobiology withdrew from its early forays into the human social sciences, and why EP has taken its place, was that as “[t]he extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organisation”[13] (E.O. Wilson's definition of sociobiology) it was empirically unsuccessful in explaining human social behaviour and kinship practices, and its efforts were roundly refuted by anthropologists[14] for their lack of consistency with the ethnographic data. Since EP rests heavily on the same theoretical underpinnings, i.e. inclusive fitness theory, and interprets the theory's application to human kinship in the same way (e.g. Daly and Wilson continuing in the tradition of R.D. Alexander)[15] it has similarly failed to account for the evidence. Recent work deconstructs EP's common interpretation of Inclusive fitness as predicting that humans have evolved to preferentially bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives, and details where the mistakes in interpreting Hamilton's Rule were made. Reinterpretation of the rule to clearly distinguish evolutionary and proximate explanations provides both greater explanatory parsimony and theoretical coherence.[16] Inclusive fitness theory itself remains a powerful argument and finds important mutual support for attachment theory in psychology, whilst other areas of EP are not affected by this reinterpretation and benefit from the clarification.


The above text is pretty confused in my opinion, makes some heady overstatements, and really needs more references and further clarification. Taking on inclusive fitness theory is pretty gutsy (pretty much like taking on the big bang theory), and it would really require replication and extensive review by evolutionary biologists before such a refutation could be taken seriously.
Maximilianholland, have you published your dissertation, or derivatives articles of it, in peer reviewed journals? If so, please give the references. Word of mouth -- "Dr. X review this and liked it" isn't sufficient for such a game-changing, revolutionary proposition.
Also, a more appropriate place for a discussion of the "refutation of inclusive fitness" would be on the Inclusive fitness page, not here. Memills (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
MEM, you are an absolute gas:
"Taking on inclusive fitness theory is pretty gutsy (pretty much like taking on the big bang theory), and it would really require replication and extensive review by evolutionary biologists before such a refutation could be taken seriously."
If only you could apply that same logic to your own pet theory. This whole damn article should be in refutation, as it contradicts logic, neurobiological science, and research from related disciplines. But you won't let contradictory logic and evidence be heard. I know you fancy to think of EP as equivalent to general evolutionary theory, gravity, big bang theories, or whatever, but you are not justified in doing so, and it is getting tiring.Logic prevails (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Inclusive fitness is the bedrock theory of modern evolutionary theory. It would indeed be a major paradigm shift should it be falsified. Should it please you, EP itself would be in serious jeopardy were that to happen since EP is primarily derivative from inclusive fitness theory.
LogicPrevails, you need to appreciate the fact that there are many academics and researchers who simply disagree with your repeated assertions that EP "ontradicts logic, neurobiological science, and research from related disciplines." If that's your opinion, fine. Others disagree. Get used to it. It almost sounds like a call for EP to censor or stop their research. That is always a red flag. If the fundamental assumptions of the discipline are wrong, don't worry, time and empirical research will tell. The veracity of a scientific theory is vetted by the cumulative empirical research, not by personal or political harangues. Memills (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This is What Encyclopedia Britannica writes about Inclusive Fitness theory: "Although some researchers still contend that inclusive fitness can be used to describe the evolution of eusociality, the theory’s empirical assumptions and relevance to only very specialized social structures have led others to challenge its validity. American biologists Edward O. Wilson, Martin A. Nowak, and Corina E. Tarnita have provided mathematical explanations for eusociality based on population genetics and natural selection; the results of their work have nearly rendered the concept of inclusive fitness obsolete. By analyzing hypothetical populations of organisms in different evolutionary scenarios, the researchers determined that competition between selection for a eusocial allele (one of a pair of genes) and selection for a solitary allele was determined by basic principles guiding natural selection rather than by selection factors that extend beyond standard fitness calculations. The researchers further concluded that genetic relatedness is a consequence of cooperation and eusociality, not a driving force behind the evolution of these characteristics.". Another rather scathing critique is published here[10]. It doesn't look lke very solid bedrock when prominent evolutionary biologists can reject the validity of the theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this Maunus. I'm aware of this debate and I'm going to read the research today. I'm not sure how the Price (1970) model of levels of selection is affected by this discussion, but I will find out. I will check whether this undermines the most primary position of IFT - that regression coefficients of genetic relationship specify criteria for the evolution of cooperative traits. Will update if I find anything pertinent. Maximilianholland (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Memills, you need to appreciate the fact that there are many academics and researchers who simply disagree with your repeated assertions that EP rests on solid theoretical ground. If that's your opinion, fine. Others disagree. Get used to it. Your actions have shown that you are wanting to censor the research and logic that contradicts your field. That is always a red flag. If the criticisms are wrong, don't worry, time and empirical research will tell. The veracity of a scientific theory is vetted by the cumulative empirical research [and reason], not by personal or political harangues. Logic prevails (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Clever! Memills (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive fitness is not the bedrock theory of modern evolutionary theory. It is a very useful concept for explaining some behaviors that do not fit the mainstream theory, but that is not the samething as making it "the bedrock theory." Now, can peopl be more specific about which sources are being challenged? I saw Sahlins' book added and then deleted and frankly I do not understand why, he is one of the top anthropologists alive, and made truly bedrock contributions to the theory of cultural evolution, and thebook that was added and removed is highly notable. What else? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Inclusive fitness is not the bedrock theory of modern evolutionary theory" -- this will be news to evolutionary biologists. Do tell -- what is the bedrock theory of modern evolutionary theory? The Sahlins (1976) ref was used as a reference to support a claim that genetic relatedness was irrelevant to human kin vs. non-kin interactions -- quite a stretch. Memills (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Very grateful to everyone getting involved in the discussion here. May I please correct some of the things that appear above: Slrubenstein & Memills - my reference to Sahlins' work was in this context:
A key reason why sociobiology withdrew from its early forays into the human social sciences, and why EP has taken its place, was that as “[t]he extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organisation”[19] (E.O. Wilson's definition of sociobiology) it was empirically unsuccessful in explaining human social behaviour and kinship practices, and its efforts were roundly refuted by anthropologists (SAHLINS) [20] for their lack of consistency with the ethnographic data. Since EP rests heavily on the same theoretical underpinnings, i.e. inclusive fitness theory, and interprets the theory's application to human kinship in the same way (e.g. Daly and Wilson continuing in the tradition of R.D. Alexander)[21] it has similarly failed to account for the evidence. Recent work deconstructs EP's common interpretation of Inclusive fitness as predicting that humans have evolved to preferentially bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives, and details where the mistakes in interpreting Hamilton's Rule were made. Reinterpretation of the rule to clearly distinguish evolutionary and proximate explanations provides both greater explanatory parsimony and theoretical coherence.[22] Inclusive fitness theory itself remains a powerful argument and finds important mutual support for attachment theory in psychology, whilst other areas of EP are not affected by this reinterpretation and benefit from the clarification.
I agree that the wording could be more clear - it was the explaining human social behaviour and kinship practices that the Sahlins evidence rebuffed, not inclusive fitness theory or its use in sociobiology or EP, or its potential compatibility with human data. One could include Joan Silk (Sociobiologist/primatologist/anthropologist), David Schneider (anthropologist) and many others here. The reason why I referenced Sahlins is that he wrote the book specifically to summarize the evidence that in a great many cultures human kinship cooperation can not be said to be programmatically directed at genetic relatives (the narrow interpretation of IFT).
Please ready carefully my edit - which Memills kindly included - to clarify what I am / am not saying about Inclusive fitness theory (IFT): Recent work deconstructs EP's common interpretation of Inclusive fitness as predicting that humans have evolved to preferentially bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives, and details where the mistakes in interpreting Hamilton's Rule were made. Reinterpretation of the rule to clearly distinguish evolutionary and proximate explanations provides both greater explanatory parsimony and theoretical coherence.[16] Inclusive fitness theory itself remains a powerful argument and finds important mutual support for attachment theory in psychology, whilst other areas of EP are not affected by this reinterpretation and benefit from the clarification.
The published work is not a correction on IFT or EP, it just correct one narrow area and a common pop-version of how IFT has often been interpreted in one area of EP. The research in fact has the result of strongly supporting IFT (especially the correct multi-level selection version of Hamilton's that incorporated Price's work on regression coefficients of relationship), because it shows clearly how IFT can be applied non-reductively to Humans (and other primates), in a way that fits all the empiricle evidence. Would it help if I made this clearer in the edit?
Memills, I hope I have put your mind at rest that I am essentially supporting, not in any way attempting to refute IFT. I am happy to include in the eidt linked reference quotes from Hamilton, Dawkins, Maynard-Smith on cautions about how to interpret IFT correctly. The WP IFT article does not need much change because it does not interpret IFT ambiguously. It's really this narrow interpretation for use in human kinship patterns where the correction is perhaps most relevant. That a correct interpretation of IFT is shown to be (non-reductively) compatible with human ethnographic data should be welcomed. The work is published, and peer reviewed, according to WP's guidelines. You can download a manuscript copy of it at the link. Please do let me know if I missed responding to anything. Are there any other reasons to hold off on this edit? Many thanks Maximilianholland (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to expand on your ideas. Frankly, however, I am still confused. You state: Recent work deconstructs EP's common interpretation of Inclusive fitness as predicting that humans have evolved to preferentially bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives. What recent work, specifically? There is, to my knowledge, a truly vast amount of evidence that humans generally do bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives -- in many, many ways: inheritance, parental investment, willingness to suffer pain to get rewards for closer relatives, food sharing, etc. Also, the use of the term "deconstructs" in the sentence is a bit of a red flag -- it is a catch word used in postmodernism, and almost never seen in scientific writing. You have mentioned above that you have found evidence that you have found evidence against nepotism, but you don't tell us what that evidence is, or provide refs. Your use of ultimate and proximate causality is also confusing. Inclusive fitness is the process that presumably led to evolved (ultimate) psychological adaptations such that (in the proximate sense) under typical environmental variability, individuals generally reliably identified genetic kin and generally behaved more altruistically toward them. Right? Finally, maybe if you could summarize your argument very briefly and succinctly, in just a couple of sentences, that would be helpful. What is the specific link to your dissertation -- perhaps I can check it out there as well. Many thanks. Memills (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I think you have pretty much understood the distinction I am drawing; I have added a summary bullet list below. The humans have evolved to preferentially bias is where the interpretation is modified. The question is not over IFT's insight that the evolution of social behaviour is dependent on genetic relatedness - it is over whether IFT predicates that the expression of social behaviour is dependent on genetic relatedness. (expression/evolution... proximate/ultimate distinction). Whilst there is surely evidence that humans generally do bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives in many societies, the question hangs on whether this is because the proximate mechanism (e.g. emotional attachment, familiarity) happens to coincide with genetic relatedness under most common social arrangements, or whether it is the genetic relationship per se that mediates the cooperation. The proximate / ultimate distinction is vital, because if it is observed, all of e.g. Sahlins' cases can be shown to fit IFT. Here's the argument:
  • Clarification of the relationship, if any, between biological forces and human social patterns and behaviours (traditionally the domain of kinship studies) would be valuable in advancing our understanding of human social cooperation.
  • Robust versions of Inclusive fitness theory (e.g. Hamilton 1970[23] ) that incorporate Price's regression coefficient of relatedness, and multi-level selection, specify necessary conditions under which the evolution of social traits can occur.[24]
  • These theoretical treatments take the form of evolutionary explanations for social behaviour rather than proximate explanations (see Tinbergen's four questions).
  • Sociobiology, Darwinian Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology have often interpreted Inclusive fitness theory as predicting something resembling ~individuals have evolved to bias their cooperation towards genetic relatives~ which is combines both a proposed proximate behavioural mechanism and an evolutionary explanation, and is strictly an incorrect interpretation of the theory.
  • A more cautious interpretation of Inclusive fitness theory encourages both consideration of whether, for any given species; a context for the evolution of social traits may/may not have existed in the species' history and; if such a context has existed, consideration of contextual cues that might mediate the expression of evolved social traits.[25][26]
  • A thorough review of the data for a wide variety of mammals that do display some social traits shows that contextual cues overwhelmingly mediate the expression of social behaviours, and that the common assumption that 'positive powers' able to discriminate coefficient of relatedness and mediate on this basis, are neither strictly predicted by the theory[27] nor in any evidence.[28]
  • The contextual cues mediating the expression of social traits in these mammals typically take the form of familiarity arising from shared history, especially from an early developmental stage.
  • Experiments testing the effect of coefficient of relationship on familiarity and mediation of social behaviours in these mammals confirms that genetic relatedness is not a necessary condition for the operation of the proximate mechanism.[28]
  • The same is the case for primates, and for these species we typically know it as emotional attachment.
  • John Bowlby and colleagues pioneering work on attachment is instructive here. As far back as 1980, Bowlby explicitly identified his work as being compatible with Inclusive fitness theory.
  • Much ethnographic literature on the workings of human social relationships and kinship arrangements demonstrates that the emotional attachment also mediates social behaviours in humans. Genetic relationship per se is not a necessary feature of emotional attachments, even those that mediate the most primary and essential social traits (infant & child care etc.)
  • We can conclude that as they apply to humans (and perhaps other mammals) biological theories of social behaviour do not predicate the expression of social behaviour on genetic relatedness or consanguinity.


I'm happy to remove the word deconstructs to avoid a post-modernist sense if you prefer. A copy of the dissertation manuscript is here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791365 Thank you very much for your dedication to keeping things clear for both ourselves and the readers. Appreciated. Maximilianholland (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info and link. I'm not sure that most behavioral ecologists, 'sociobiologists' studying animal behavior, or evolutionary psychologists would agree with your thesis in its entirety. I think that most would agree with you that, in human ancestral environments, it was a pretty good rule to follow that if you grew up with a small sub-group of a tribe, those adults and kids were probably closely genetically related to you. And, that under unusual conditions, they could have been non-kin such that, from an evolutionary perspective, the genetic nepotism psychological adaptation would 'misfire' due to those proximate factors. However, there still is a great body of evidence that suggests that psychological adaptations to recognize kin, and to generally treat them more favorably than non-kin, do operate under a great variety of circumstances. For example, there is a whole literature on how the degree of resemblance to a parent can affect the level of parental investment. There is evidence that when the likelihood of genetic paternity is low, putative fathers redirect their parental investment to their sister's children (with whom they may be more likely to share genes). Most people, given a choice, would prefer to have their own genetic children rather than adopt genetically unrelated ones. I don't think that this evidence can be ignored to argue that humans are agnostic and/or unconcerned with actual genetic relationships.
Your dissertation was a literature review for a sociology degree, it was not an empirical study, and your predilection against adaptationist approaches is pretty clear in it. And, it is unpublished. Despite my reservations, I would not object to including a sentence or two, something to the effect that " ...if humans have psychological adaptations to generally recognize or favor kin, at times such mechanisms might be affected by developmental events, such as early attachment to non-relatives (as might be the case in adoption)," or a sentence or two that you think might better present your position. I don't think you have made the case against inclusive fitness theory (as you note yourself), or, that humans are generally unconcerned with issues related to genetic kinship. I think you have presented an argument that most EPers could agree with: like most psychological adaptations, social bonding is a facultative adaptation, and can be significantly influenced by unusual early developmental events.
Thanks for sharing your work. Memills (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A PhD Dissertation is certainly more reliable than your own completely unverifiable conference papers that you have cited.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Memills, I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to think about this.
  • The work is published and peer reviewed, according to WP's definition: The rules about which sources are considered reliable confirm that approved PhD theses which are available through university library systems DO count as reliable, verifiable and published sources.
  • Hamilton's original IFT was not an empirical study - it was an argument (mathematical) and a literature review, just like the current one. In other words, whether the research itself conducted fieldwork-type data generation surely has no bearing on the issue.
  • I am aware of the literature on degree of resemblance and social bias within families, but it has not been conducted across cultures and thus may well be influenced by cultural factors (such the cultural value 'blood is thicker than water' - See e.g. Schneider American Kinship : A Cultural Account and A Critique of the Study of Kinship). Thus this research does not in itself necessarily have a bearing on the question.
  • On your point that - There is evidence that when the likelihood of genetic paternity is low, putative fathers redirect their parental investment to their sister's children (with whom they may be more likely to share genes). - the original idea/research was done and discussed by Alexander (1974, p363), and from his starting point, a veritable research programme certainly emerged; Green (1978) Kurland (1979) Irons (1979, p189) Gaulin & Schlegel (1980, 304) Flinn (1981, p447) Fox (1985, p675) (Hartung 1985 p661) and many others. It is thoroughly discussed in my chapter 3, and ultimately shown to be better explained by the cautious interpretation of IFT than the popular interpretation. Their lack of success with this human kinship data was a reason why the original sociobiologists withdrew from this area. I am not aware of new work that has more success, If I have missed something important, please point me to it. Meanwhile, the revised interpretation has explanatory fit with all the ethnographic data.
  • I did not start out with any doubts about adaptationist approaches - I was a very good EP student initially (you probably know that LSE has had a strong tradition of supporting EP since the 1990s), but uncovered these precise problems in the areas I investigated in the PhD. In other words, my concerns emerged from the findings, not from some pre-commitment. I hope you can agree that this is surely what science is all about.
  • I'm sure we can all agree that early development is key in shaping the expression of social bonding mechanisms. I'm probably being dim, but please help me to understand precisely what you mean by 'a facultative adaptation' - could translate that into proximate / evolutionary language for me?

Thanks for helping us reach a consensus that we should give a sentence or two to this in the article. I will draft something and include some linked citations. Many thanks Maximilianholland (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Memills asks me what the bedrock of the modern synthesis is, of not inclusive fitniess. Since modern evolutionary theory developed decades before the theory of inclusive fitnes, I am still surprised that this is a question, but okay, I would day the application of Mendellian principles to populations, and the development of statistical models for changes in gene frequencies over time, is the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. It is modern evolutionary theory, including the Hardy Weinberg law, that is the bedrock for "inclusive fitness" - hardly the other way around.
Memills also writes, "There is, to my knowledge, a truly vast amount of evidence that humans generally do bias social cooperation towards genetic relatives -- in many, many ways: inheritance, parental investment, willingness to suffer pain to get rewards for closer relatives, food sharing, etc" To my knowledge, there is a vast amount of evidence so support the opposite. In the United States the most significant cooperative efforts are among non-kin; in fact, family farms and family businesses frequently close down to be replaced by corporations with publically traded shares. When one turns to very different societies - say, in the Amazon or Melanesia - one also sees that the bias to form close cooperative relationships with non-kin is at least as strong if not stronger than it is with kin. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I will also add that there have been studies to tease apart genetic similarity versus environmental familiarity and the latter seems to have the most predictive validity. Attachment theory specifically comes to mind. There have even been animal studies (mammals) that test kinship theory based on genetic similarity versus attachment theory - again, the latter has far greater predictive validity. Logic prevails (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Logic - great that you are familiar with the literature and able to summarize the salient points here. many thanks Maximilianholland (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEIGHT. I like that policy a lot because it supports the majority viewpoint. Detractors of WP hate that policy a lot, but it's policy. Basically, if Holland can find his viewpoint represented in commonly accepted reference texts, then it's a majority viewpoint. If he can find his viewpoint endorsed by prominent experts within the field, then it's a notable viewpoint (albeit not the majority viewpoint). If we can't find a prominent figure who endorses the finding, then it's considered fringe (even if it's actually true!). So now the question is, what's the most prominent source that we can find in support of Holland's viewpoint? Leadwind (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been told by multiple editors including admins at the WP:RS and WP:NPOV noteboards that your interpretation of weights as supporting your assertiong about majority in relation to Ep are erroneous. By repeating this faulty understanding of policy you are in effect incriminating yourself.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Memills and I had a constructive discussion, and we have agreed that it would be worthwhile to include this edit. Here is my proposal:

Inclusive fitness theory specifies the selection pressures acting at multiple levels of selection, and in particular specifies the conditions of genetic relatedness within which certain social characteristics can evolve. However, this not the logical equivalent of the statement: Inclusive fitness theory predicts that organisms have evolved the characteristic of preferentially cooperating with genetic relatives[29][30][31][22]. This logical error is not often recognized and as a result, a large amount of research that follows this interpretation suffers from the same weakness as earlier sociobiological[29][30] approaches, commonly [31][22][32] treating the erroneous statement as a central guiding principle through which human social behavior should be studied. This research cannot make sense of the data[20] on humans that cultural anthropologists have clearly documented; that human social cooperation (usually studied as kinship) does not have any necessary dependence on genetic relationship [33][34][22] but instead is based on familiarity[35], sharing[36], and emotional ties[37] [38][22][39]. The first, correct, interpretation of inclusive fitness theory is fully compatible with the anthropological position[22], thus providing space for renewed collaboration between natural and social science approaches to human social behaviour.

Please lend your thoughts. Maximilianholland (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a very welcome addition. Perhaps it would be pertinent to mention group selection as an alternative theory? Also I don't think the wording "the first, correct, interpretation" is good, we shouldn't say what is correct and what isn't, but we can mention that this interpretation is compatible with both approaches and can explain the findings of both camps. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there is no conflict between inclusive fitness and multi-level group selection - they are essentially one and the same - see Price(1970) Hamilton (1970) Hamilton (1975) and the subsequent literature. Part of the problem is that Hamilton and Price's updated versions of inclusive fitness theory, whilst conceptually very elegant - require one getting one's head around regression coefficients of relationship repeating at multiple levels-within-levels. Few people understand it, thus this persistent problem of the (over-) simplified versions gaining mindshare. I have to go to bed, but hope to catch you all in a few hours. many thanksMaximilianholland (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the above is too lengthy for this article, and presents a perspective that is pretty controverial. Here is a suggestion: Memills (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Inclusive fitness theory predicts that organisms have evolved psychological adaptations to generally recognize kin, and to generally behave more altruistically toward genetic kin than non-kin '[29][30][31][22]. In contrast, some cultural anthropologists have argued that human social cooperation (usually studied as kinship) does not have any necessary dependence on genetic relationship [33][34][22] but instead is based on familiarity[35], sharing[36], and emotional ties[37] [38][22][39]. Evolutionary psychologists would suggest that while social bonding is indeed a facultative adaptation, and can be influenced especially by early developmental events, there are many instances where humans do generally demonstrate greater altruism toward genetic kin, including inheritance patterns, parental investment, willingness to suffer pain to get rewards for closer relatives, food sharing, etc. (Buss, 2011). Memills (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The change of cultural anthropologists in general to "some cultural anthropologists" is not warranted, this is very much a consensus viewpoint in cultural anthropology. Also you change statements about conflicting data to a statement that "anthropologists argue" this suggests that it is an argument and not as is factually the case a large amoount of data that contradicts the hypothesis of kin preference. Also you give the last word about the data collected in anthropology to EP'ers who simply contradict the body of crosscultural data, without actually engageing it and without being based in actual contradictory data of a comparablly comparative nature. Otherwise I appreciated this move towards a more collaborative form of editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, drop the "some."
With respect to the last sentence re the EP perspective, there is substantial empirical evidence, summarized in EP textbooks, that "humans do generally demonstrate greater altruism toward genetic kin." I gave the ref to Buss (2011) re this -- I would be happy to add more refs re this. Memills (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
good disucssion. i'm typing this in bed -excuse typos- and really should sleep ! No one doubts that in many or even most cases humans do in fact express a great deal of social behaviour towards genetic relatives, but the point is around whether that is 'because they are genetic relatives' or simply because our evolved proximate mechanisms work according to a rough rule of thumb like -share food with those in your nest- (dawkins 1979), and humans in many societies continue, like most other mammals, do often tend to 'nest' with relatives (but not 'because they are relatives') and not because they value relatedness - many societies show substantial variations around this. This distinction is important - Hamiliton himself (1987 I think - reviewed in chapter 4 (i'm still in bed)) says that we have no reason to expect that any animal has 'positive powers' of recognizing genetic relatives for cooperation

(tho maybe for inbreeding avoidance). he also says that the proximate mechanisms of cooperation are likely to be context based, not predicated on genetic relatedness per se. Let me repeat to be clear - Hamilton himself says this. Ch. 4 thoroughly reviews the whole 'discrimination' of relatedness literature, hamilton, grafen, sherman, many others. please take a look, i hope you will find it informative.Maximilianholland (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that ancestral humans had no way to determine genetic relatedness, except via psychological adaptations that relied on proximate factors. These proximate factors, such early childhood bonding, likely operated to effectively bond children to biological kin. However, there is more to kin recognition than just who you were raised with. More recent evidence (after Hamilton) suggests that we likely have other psychological adaptations to recognize kin from non-kin, including degree of resemblance (especially facial resemblance), odor (we can detect kin by smell), and via cognitive/language adaptations that Dough Jones has called a "universal grammar" of kin identification that is common to all cultures. (This material is from Buss, 2011 -- I can provide more specific refs.) Memills (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Memills for being willing to engage with the research here - its very likely those research hypotheses are derived and tested due to the same misreading of IFT's core logic (I am willing & interested to look at the research & refs) - please have a look at this 2007 paper where Tooby and Cosmides describe and show both their theoretical and empirical support for the position that correlation with genetic relatedness in humans is based on circumstantial cues and familiarity - http://www.life.umd.edu/faculty/wilkinson/BIOL608W/LiebermanNature07.pdf - (rather than any form of phenotype matching). There are many reasons why this should be ~ Did you read my review of the core literature? Please at least have a quick look at this simple Evolutionary Psychology Journal review of the persistent misunderstandings of IFT by park (2007). many thanks. Maximilianholland (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
sorry, here's the Park (2007) http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP05860873.pdf Maximilianholland (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs and links. I'll check them out. Memills (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is something interesting. According to Park (2007) Buss has the correct understanding of inclusive fitness in his textbook. However, in the same book (including the 2011 4th Ed.) he does present evidence, as I noted above, that humans likely have psychological adaptations to recognize kin from non-kin, including degree of resemblance (especially facial resemblance), odor (we can detect kin by smell), and via cognitive/language adaptations that Dough Jones has called a "universal grammar" of kin identification that is common to all cultures.
Is it your contention that such kin identification adaptations could not evolve? That doesn't seem to be the contention of the Park (2007) article. Can you expand on this issue? Thanks. Memills (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Memills - glad that you got through that article. Its good that a prominent text book like Buss has a more grounded formulation of Inclusive Fitness theory. I would suggest that research that is orientated towards looking for evidence of 'positive powers' of kin discrimination is fine and welcome, but it should not detract from the bigger picture that - positive powers are not predicted or entailed by the theory, and are not necessary to show that IFT is already compatible, even supportive of the consensus view from anthropology. Species identification mechanisms are long know about for mating purposes, and more specifically, 'positive power' (rather than context-based) kin identification mechanisms (if present) may be selected for inbreeding avoidance. The point is to show whether 'positive powers' or 'context cues' are more important mediators of social cooperation (and sacrifice etc.) across all humans as a whole (not just in cultures that have a strong cultural value of blood relationship and its cultural importance). If you ask the anthropologists, they will tell you there is much more evidence that context, location etc. mediates, than 'positive powers'. I have found the Jones article in my collection, and will have a look. What did you think of the Tooby and Cosmides article that maintains that context-based cues are central? Maximilianholland (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If Holland and Mills can agree on wording, I naturally support it. Leadwind (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
michael - a good real-world example to stimulate clear thinking is that of the male infanticide that sometimes occurs in some species of primate and some other social mammals. Apart from the fact that data suggests that the infanticidal behaviour by the male is itself mediated by circumstances rather than 'positive powers' of discerning coefficient of relationship, think about the selection pressure on traits in the infants. Would such traits be positively selected to signal their coefficient of relationship under such conditions? Beyond that, think about the selection pressures when group living has become the norm for e.g. a primate species. Given that food access and predator avoidance now force individuals to succeed as members of a group (solitary living is a fast path to death) - willi-nilli their 'actual' coefficient of relationship to others in the group - what is the pressure to signal actual coefficient of relationship? Thinking through these will help evaluate the different perspectives on how the implications of IFT are most productively considered. I'm off into the hills for a few days, will pick this up later. many thanks. Maximilianholland (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Max, thanks for the additional discussion. I am not sure what you mean by "positive powers" -- I presume that you are referring to psychological adaptations to discern genetic kin based on factors other than who you grew up with (?). The case of infanticide by males -- especially after pride take-overs in lions and after the defeat of an alpha male in primates -- seems to me to be an example of a kin recognition adaptations ("positive powers"?). The rule seems to be "if you have copulated with a female, don't kill her offspring because they might be your children." Sara Hrdy, as you probably know, has documented what appears to be a female counter-strategy to reduce the probability of the murder of her offspring during a takeover -- she copulates with the beta males as "insurance." These seem to be psychological adaptations to identify kin (one's genetic children, in this case) independent of early developmental events.
You mentioned above: ...Tooby and Cosmides describe and show both their theoretical and empirical support for the position that correlation with genetic relatedness in humans is based on circumstantial cues and familiarity - http://www.life.umd.edu/faculty/wilkinson/BIOL608W/LiebermanNature07.pdf - (rather than any form of phenotype matching). My read of their paper is a bit different. They do mention maternal association and sibling coresidence during development as proxies for genetic kin detection, but they also mention a third that they label as Additional Cue Monitoring: appearance matching, MHC matching (detectable via smell), and possible additional factors. These latter factors are "positive powers?" They conclude their article with this: "The tight mesh between theoretical expectations and empirical tests provides strong support for the hypothesis that humans have a system designed by selection to detect genetic relatedness... ...These results contribute to a growing body of findings showing that humans are not immune to the evolutionary forces that have shaped other species, and that Darwinism has a central role in discovering the neural and psychological architecture of our species."
Memills (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone here quoted "American biologists Edward O. Wilson, Martin A. Nowak, and Corina E. Tarnita have provided mathematical explanations for eusociality based on population genetics and natural selection; the results of their work have nearly rendered the concept of inclusive fitness obsolete." Authors like Dawkins and Trivers have recently contested Wilson et al's paper, that article hasn't "rendered the concept of inclusive fitness obsolete." That was just one side of the story, it's far from being final, there are numerous examples of articles with empirical evidence that corroborated inclusive fitness theory. And as Dawkins said:

"This is no surprise. Edward Wilson was misunderstanding kin selection as far back as Sociobiology, where he treated it as a subset of group selection (Misunderstanding Two of my 'Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection': Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1979). Kin selection is not a subset of group selection, it is a logical consequence of gene selection. And gene selection is (everything that Nowak et al ought to mean by) 'standard natural selection' theory: has been ever since the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s. Inclusive fitness theory is not some kind of supernumerary excrescence, to be 'resorted to' only if 'standard natural selection theory' is found wanting (Misunderstanding One). On the contrary, inclusive fitness theory is one way of expressing what was logically inherent in the synthesis ever since Fisher and Haldane, but had been largely overlooked because people (with the exception of those two geniuses) didn't think about collateral kin."

"If you think, as Nowak et al do, that 'Hamilton's rule almost never holds', that simply means you haven't been measuring B and C carefully enough. r is not the only term in Hamilton's inequality. B and C matter too, and your game-theoretic considerations are subsumed within them."

Also, this is a reminder to people that think of Wilson's Sociobiology as almost equivalent to Evolutionary Psychology, and supposedly refute EP with arguments agains Sociobiology. That metonymy is fallacious, since his concept of kin selection is different. --143.54.209.3 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)--Lestermann11 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, IP. I've been wondering what's up with Wilson's recent broadside against inclusive fitness. Wilson favored group selection in 1975. Dawkins gutted group selection with Selfish Gene in 1976. It's not really news that a particular scientist still wants his 1975 stance to be right and the 1976 critique of his theory to be wrong. Leadwind (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary Psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 13: 9780131115293, Chapter 4, p 81-101.
  2. ^ a b c d e Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary Psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 13: 9780131115293, Chapter 11, p 239-256.
  3. ^ Nesse, R., & Williams, G. (1996) Why we get sick. NY: Vintage.
  4. ^ Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 13: 9780131115293, Chapter 1, p 1-24.
  5. ^ Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 13: 9780131115293, Chapter 1, p 1-24.
  6. ^ Adams, H. and Sutker, P. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology, 3rd Ed. Springer. 2001. Chapter 3, p 53-84.
  7. ^ Adams, H. and Sutker, P. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology, 3rd Ed. Springer. 2001. Chapter 5, p 105-127
  8. ^ American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). 2000. Culture Bound Syndromes, p 897-903.
  9. ^ Adams, H. and Sutker, P. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology, 3rd Ed. Springer. 2001. Chapter 5, p 105-127
  10. ^ Adams, H. and Sutker, P. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology, 3rd Ed. Springer. 2001
  11. ^ Nichols, Shaun, and Grantham, Todd."Adaptive Complexity and Phenomenal Consciousness." 2000. Philosophy of Science Vol. 67 pp. 648-670.
  12. ^ Freeman and Herron. Evolutionary Analysis. 2007. Pearson Education, NJ.
  13. ^ Eccles, John C. "Evolution of consciousness." 1992. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 89 pp. 7320-7324
  14. ^ Peters, Frederic "Consciousness as Recursive, Spatiotemporal Self-Location"
  15. ^ Baars, Bernard J. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. 1993. Cambridge University Press.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary Psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 13: 9780131115293, Chapter 5, p 101-121.
  17. ^ Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1984). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change
  18. ^ Ulrich Witt, (2008). "evolutionary economics." The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, v. 3, pp. 67-68 Abstract.
  19. ^ Wilson, E.O. (1978) On Human Nature Page x, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard
  20. ^ a b Sahlins, M. (1976) The Use and Abuse of Biology. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Cite error: The named reference "Sahlins1976" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  21. ^ Daly, Matin, and Margo I. Wilson. (1999). An evolutionary psychological perspective on homicide. In Homicide Studies: A Sourcebook of Social Research, edited by D. Smith and M. Zahn.
    "Hamilton replaced the classical Darwinian conception of organisms as evolved reproductive strategists with the notion that they have evolved to be nepotistic strategists (Alexander, 1979). One implication of this theory is that any socially complex species is likely to possess psychological adaptations tending to soften potentially costly conflicts among genetic relatives…. The general rule is that the intensity of conflict is adjusted nepotistically in relation to available cues of kinship. There is no obvious reason why human beings should be an exception." (page 63)
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i Holland, Maximilian, "Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches", London School of Economics, PhD Thesis 2004 Cite error: The named reference "SBNK" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  23. ^ Hamilton W.D. (1970) Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model. Nature 228, 1218 - 1220
  24. ^ Hamilton W.D. (1975) Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: An Approach from Evolutionary Genetics. In Robin Fox (ed.), ASA Studies 4: Biosocial Anthropology, pp. 133-53 (Malaby Press, London, 1975)

    Because of the way it was first explained, the approach using inclusive fitness has often been identified with ‘kin selection’ and presented strictly as an alternative to ‘group selection’. But the foregoing discussion shows that kinship should be considered just one way of getting positive regression of genotype in the recipient, and that it is this positive regression that is vitally necessary for altruism. Thus the inclusive-fitness concept is more general than ‘kin selection’.(Hamilton 1996 (1975) p. 337)

  25. ^ Dawkins, R. (1979)12 Misunderstandings of kin selection. Z. Tierpsychology 51:184-200.
  26. ^ Hamilton, W. D. (1964)The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1-52.
  27. ^ Hamilton, W.D. (1987)Discriminating nepotism: expectable, common and overlooked. In Kin recognition in animals, edited by D. J. C. Fletcher and C. D. Michener. New York: Wiley.
  28. ^ a b Sherman et al (1997) Recognition Systems. In Behavioural Ecology, edited by J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
  29. ^ a b c Alexander, R. D. (1974). "The Evolution of Social Behavior." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 325-383.
  30. ^ a b c Gaulin, S. J. C. and A. Schlegel (1980). "Paternal Confidence and Paternal Investment: A Cross Cultural Test of a Sociobiological Hypothesis." Ethology and Sociobiology 1: 301-309.
  31. ^ a b c Daly, M., C. Salmon, et al. (1997). Kinship: the conceptual hole in psychological studies of social cognition and close relationships. Evolutionary social psychology. J. A. Simpson and D. Kenrick. Mahwah NJ, Erlbaum: 265-296.
  32. ^ Persistent Misunderstandings of Inclusive Fitness and Kin Selection: Their Ubiquitous Appearance in Social Psychology Textbooks Evolutionary Psychology. 5(4): 860-873
  33. ^ a b Schneider, D. M. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
  34. ^ a b Silk, J. B. (1987). "Adoption Among the Inuit." Ethos 15(3): 320-330.
  35. ^ a b Kitcher, P. S. (1985).Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, Mass, MIT press.
  36. ^ a b Galvin, K.L. (2001). Schneider Revisited: Sharing and Ratification in the Construction of Kinship. New directions in anthropological kinship. L. Stone. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  37. ^ a b Richards, A. I. (1932). Hunger and Work in a Savage Tribe: A functional study of Nutrition among the Southern Bantu. London, G. Routledge and sons.
  38. ^ a b Carsten, J. (2000). Introduction: cultures of relatedness. Cultures of relatedness: new approaches to the study of kinship. J. Carsten. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  39. ^ a b Witherspoon, G. (1975). Navajo kinship and marriage. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_5&oldid=1136280096"