| Revision as of 19:50, 13 August 2011 editMemills (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,384 edits →Page numbers II← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:41, 28 September 2024 edit undoRahneli (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,727 edits Update Psychology Capstone assignment detailsTag: dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.3] | ||
| (351 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{old peer review|archive=1}} | |||
| {{American English}} | |||
| --------- | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
| <center><big>There currently exists an ''']''' for the purposes of trying to provide an outline for the ] and of minimizing the edit wars at the main article, as well.</big></center> | |||
| {{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |importance=High}} | |||
| ---------- | |||
| {{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Top}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= | |||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=low |science=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Anthropology |importance=high}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Cognitive science |importance=Mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Neuroscience |importance=Mid}} | ||
| }} | |||
| {{Article History | |||
| |action1=PR | |||
| |action1date=10:00:30 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Evolutionary psychology/archive1 | |||
| |action1result=reviewed | |||
| |action1oldid=937197483 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 7 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(90d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age= |
{{archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index | | ||
| * ] ('03 – Jun '06) | * ] ('03 – Jun '06) | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| Line 24: | Line 31: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} |
}} | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Reductionism and science) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Reductionism and science","appear":{"revid":210586448,"parentid":210032892,"timestamp":"2008-05-06T15:36:27Z","replaced_anchors":{"Reductionism & Science":"Reductionism and science","Reductionism in Mathematics":"Reductionism in mathematics"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":652911768,"parentid":652907979,"timestamp":"2015-03-21T18:54:23Z","replaced_anchors":{"Free will":"In free will"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| }} | |||
| --------- | |||
| == modularity/computation criticism == | |||
| <div class="center"><big>There currently exists an ''']''' for the purposes of trying to provide an outline for the ] and of minimizing the edit wars at the main article, as well.</big></div> | |||
| ---------- | |||
| The following material is based on a single primary source. There's no evidence that it's a live issue as far as our secondary and tertiary sources are concerned. According to WP:DUE, we should give this viewpoint coverage commensurate with its coverage in secondary and tertiary sources, which I guess means not at all, not on this page anyway. | |||
| Here's the quote: "Another frequent critique against the narrowly defined discipline of evolutionary psychlogy comes even from other psychologists who work within evolutionary frameworks. This is a critique of the computational and specifically the modular theory of mind, which according to several groups of critics is not well supported, or necessary in order to explain psychological traits as having adapted. Proponents of other models of the mind argue that the computational theory of mind does not fit with our biological reality any more than does a mind shaped entirely by the environment." ] (]) 15:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :That quote gives a false description of non-modular theories of mind - they do not propose a mind "entirely shaped by the environment" - they propose a mind based on few general multipurpose processes rather than many highly specific modules. The modularity criticism is repeated in scores of independent secondary and tertiary sources. It is probably the most common criticism of EP among people who study cognitive sciences.]·] 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, find a secondary source and we're all good. ] (]) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: We've been through this before... there is no policy stating that we should only cite secondary sources (i.e. textbooks). There are two primary sources used here, which for its length, is better than the single sources used elsewhere. The issue of innate modularity is a huge issue (even MeMills has attested to that fact), so it stays and needs no further justification.] (]) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Logic, I know you're fond of Panksepp, and I was wondering if this thread would prompt a response, but ] says we should cover issues to the extent that they're covered in our best sources. If there are no secondary or tertiary sources that credit this criticism as significant, then it's undue weight to cover it, at least at this length. If secondary and tertiary sources don't treat this issue as important, it's a violation of policy for us to do so. As much as I might like to take your personal word for it, we do sort of need to stick to policies and guidelines. ] (]) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You have no ground to stand on. Panksepp is highly regarded and has written textbooks in the neurosciences - it would seem that in order for you to view him as notable, he would need to write one against EP? He would not waste his time. The real point here is that he is not presenting anything new... he is himself citing research that is well founded within the neurobiological sciences. In this sense, his article can be considered closer to a secondary source. Even still, policy does not prevent us from using primary ones. ] (]) 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have repeatedly requested secondary or tertiary sources supporting the idea that Panksepp's "plasticity" theory is anything but fringe, and no one has offered a single reference. So until we get such a reference, let's leave Panksepp off the page, OK? ] (]) 09:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Logic has restored material from Panksepp without offering any evidence that his plasticity theory is anything more than fringe. Since that's a violation of ], I'll be deleting it again, unless someone can provide a source that shows us Panksepp's view is notable. ] (]) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It would be extremely odd if someone who has written textbooks in the neurosciences would advocate anything we would call fringe. And we are talking about some very highly cited papers. ] (]) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Keep in mind the distinction between evolutionary (adaptationist / ultimate) level of analysis, and proximate (neuropsychology, developmental, endocrinology, etc.) Panksepp primarily works in the latter area. He has provided no evolutionary based theory of the brain/mind that is a real alternative to general EP. | |||
| ::::::::: Moreover, this Controversies section is redundant with what is already in the intro to Criticisms of EP page, and it also focuses on issues that are really more relevant to the larger ] debate (and so is redundant with that page). Those here with strong antipathy toward EP, such as LogicPrevails, will no doubt wail and bristle at this suggestion, but this section needs to be condensed, shortened, should link out to general ] issues (which is a far larger controversy), and this section should be far less redundant with material that is already on the Criticisms page. ] (]) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::OK, several things here. Attaching labels to fellow editors isn't helpful, please don't do it again. This article should not have a Controversies section. Also, there should be no Criticisms of EP page; it should be merged with this one. Scholarly criticism of EP is relevant to the article and should be covered in various sections. It is not up to us to estimate whether Panksepp's work constitutes "a real alternative", and he might have a valid critique without providing an alternative. I understand that you are saying that Panksepp works in a different field of psychology to the EP writers. But that is not relevant either. People working in a number of areas of the social and natural sciences may legitimately construct critiques of a field of enquiry like EP, which intrinsically has a wide field of application. A statistician might have points to make, an economist might, a historian of ideas might make relevant points about the emergence of EP, a philosopher might have things to say. Once we have established that someone is an expert in the field that they write on, pertinence and notability are the criteria to use. ] (]) 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I agree with the points made by Judith. I will just add a couple more. Leadwind, Panksepp does not have a "plasticity" theory. Neural plasticity is a fact insofar as facts exist in neurobiology. If you want a couple good primers, I would suggest "Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology" by Kolb & Wishaw, and Panksepp's "Affective Neuroscience." Again, there is nothing new there and nothing 'fringe' like... unless you would consider human neuropsychology and neurobiology fringe fields. Panksepp is simply a neuroscientist using his particular theoretical lens to make a critique of EP. It would seem to me that Panksepp, or any other neuroscientist, can make valid criticisms of EP (though you also have the right to argue that they are unsound), without having developed an alternative 'explains-all' psychological theory. His theoretical alternative is ''human neurobiology'' and the evidence that his field has thus far accumulated. He argues that EP (and its assumption regarding modularity) is inconsistent with the neuroscientific evidence. I see no reason why his criticisms or views ought to be excluded. I also want to address MeMills, who is again wanting to view the criticisms as part of a nature/nurture dichotomy. Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying. If I thought like an evolutionary psychologist, I would tend to agree with you. However, non-evolutionary psychologists DO NOT see these criticisms as part of a larger nature-nurture debate and we need to cite their views. ] (]) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Judith -- the point about the ultimate / proximate distinction is very relevant here. One could argue that the eye is very complex (a proximate explanation), and therefore argue that the eye is too complex for evolutionary theory (an ultimate explanation) to explain. Note that by arguing this without providing an alternative explanation, isn't really too helpful. It is called the "argument from incredulity." Also, neural plasticity is not inconsistent with EP. EP is about explaining how what we call neural plasticity evolved, and what casual principles direct it. Neural plasticity is not random nor boundless. Otherwise, one is arguing for psychological 'magic' or 'spirits' -- basically what might be called "psychological creationism." | |||
| :::::::::::: LogicPrevails, some of these criticisms ''predate'' EP. To wit: free will, reductionism, genetic determinism, ethical concerns about biological explanations, etc. They are indeed part of the larger ] debate, and were not generated as criticisms of EP. ] (]) 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: Mills, this is not a place to debate the merits of your arguments for or against your favored theory. We only need to reference and cite notable views in the literature. I have already engaged you in debate around these issues before and you have proven to me that you do not understand neurobiology in the least. A 'modular' eye is very different from claims about modules for rape-aversion, preference for blonds, etc... the brain is not massively modular. You say in theory that you agree, but in practice you don't. And yes, some of the criticisms predate EP, in the same way that some of the flawed arguments of EP predate Darwin. Most of the criticisms do apply to EP since they use the same ol' assumptions. Many are also new (specifically with regard to modularity). ] (]) 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The bottom line is that a psychologist wrote a book-length critique. We need to provide that information to the readers, and say a little about what the critique was. Ripostes to the critique can potentially also be mentioned. As to the merits of the arguments on either side, NPOV requires that we limit ourselves to factual detail so that the readers can make their own minds up, or track down the literature that will enable them to do so. See WP:FRINGE, this is an difference of views within scholarship. ] (]) 12:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :"The bottom line is that a psychologist wrote a book-length critique." I think the bottom line is that no one has offered any evidence that any expert takes Panksepp's criticism seriously. We're supposed to cover topics as they're covered in secondary and tertiary sources, and no one will provide any secondary or tertiary source supporting Panksepp's critique. When someone can provide a secondary or tertiary source, then I'll support including Panksepp. If our secondary and tertiary sources don't mention this critique, why should we? ] (]) 15:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, the main issue here then is what we consider primary and what secondary. If this is primary then I will have a quick look for secondary-source notice of it. I think the source is cited though and could also look that up. ] (]) 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I guess you're right. If Panksepp's paper is a secondary source, then it's legit. But it's his paper about his viewpoint, so that seems like a primary source to me. He has a particular view about plasticity (that it's not the sort of plasticity that could be shaped into less-general modules by evolution, thus undermining EP), and I've never seen any secondary source say anything nice about that viewpoint. When there's disagreement in a field, we're supposed to look to secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a neutral viewpoint. We have some sources like that (psych textbooks, encyclopedia britannica), but none of them mention Panksepp's plasticity critique. If none of them mention his viewpoint, we need a good reason to do so. ] (]) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Referencing style == | |||
| I'm going to improve the referencing style, so that in "Notes", we have short form ("Harvard") references, author(s) and date. The full references will go under "References" and then "Further reading" will be anything that could be useful to a reader but that we haven't used. A mechanical exercise, but the reorganisation will help me read the article in more detail, get a better handle on what sources we are using, and how. Hope that's OK. ] (]) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Just started, and this is what springs to attention. References to books need page references. The very first note, 1, is to several works; only one or two are needed, but page numbers need to be given so that the reader can cross-check. Whoever has the referenced books to hand could help out with this. Thanks. Also, do we think it's appropriate to use Britannica, I'd say not. ] (]) 11:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I took out the reference to the Psyche Games website, seems to be any old website. I found the remarkable line "Here are the some games which may kinder the light of the psychology in each individuals:" on it. OK, it had a brief description of EP, bet it was copied from somewhere. ] (]) 12:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for doing the thankless work that no one else will do. ] (]) 09:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I haven't actually done much of it yet, but am starting now. Is Buss 2005 the same edition as Buss 2004? If so, can we give just one date for consistency? Which? Can page numbers please be added to all references to books, I know that will take time. The first referenced statement, with a whole list of books and no page numbers is a textbook example of how not to reference. On the positive side, I see that most works cited are appropriate scholarly texts. ] (]) 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Controversies section violates NPOV == | |||
| The controversies section violates NPOV by having almost only criticisms while not including the counter-argument. It is also quite long for a summary of a main article. There are two solutions: 1) Include the counter-arguments. However, this will make this section even longer and in unnecessary since we have a main article. 2) Shorten the criticisms to a NPOV summary without going into long, exact details regarding the arguments and counter-arguments.] (]) 05:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :"The '''Lead''' section violates NPOV by having almost '''only claims of EP''' while not including the criticisms." Double standard Miradre? You also create a false choice with your two options... I also do not see how shortening the criticisms entails a NPOV. I would suggest you actually read the policy on NPOV to understand what it means - your frequent reference to it suggests that you do not. ] (]) 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Obviously the lead section of the main article should mainly present the topic and theories. Yes, there should also be notable criticisms and support for the theories, if any, but that is not the main the focus.] (]) 10:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Alternative 1 done here with added counter-arguments. The section is much more NPOV now.] (]) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I agree that there is too little mention of the criticisms in the intro. Added more.] (]) 11:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| See this edit: Seems to be a double standard. The exact criticisms are not explained in detail so why should the counter-arguments be explained in detail? That is more appropriately something for the main criticisms article.] (]) 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I removed this para due to vagueness: "Also the basic theoretical assumptions of the discipline are challenged by its critics. Some theoreticians argue that evolutionary psychology leans on misconceptions of biological and evolutionary theory which affects its claims to scientific validity.<ref>{{cite book|title=Theoretical Issues in Psychology: An Introduction|coauthor=Huip Looren De Jong|year=2006|publisher=Sage|pages=230–1}}</ref>{{Clarify|date=July 2011}}" What misconceptions? EP is based on principles of basic evolutionary biology. ] (]) 14:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Memills it matters not a jot whether ''you'' think EP has misconceptions or not. What matters is whether or not there are any ''critics'' who think it has misconceptions. You're right that the sentence is vague. The solution is to look up what de Jong says, we have the page reference, and try and summarise his point more precisely. ] (]) 14:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I found quite a balanced peer-reviewed survey in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Stephen Downes. It is an example of a dispassionate ] which could be used to describe research in this area, together with criticisms. Rather than wikipedia editors making personal assessments using their own choice of primary sources (and the risk of falling into the trap of ] and ]), this is the kind of article that should be used. ] (]) 15:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sources I have used are not primary.] (]) 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since the subject is controversial, sources contain rebuttals written by evolutionary psychologists are primary, even if they appear in peer-reviewed journals. I have mentioned a general problem with this article and '']'' on ]. ] (]) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::A subject with thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including in major psychology journals, is of course not fringe.] (]) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There are also thousands of peer-reviewed articles on ESP and various hypothesized "para-psychology" phenomena. Yet, these remain largely fringe topics (for good reason, I think). A better criterion is needed...] (]) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I again quote a 2010 review in '']'': "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." ] (]) 18:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I want to address this solely from a style perspective. i think it is very poor style to write an encyclopedia article as if it is the transcript of a debate. What we need is an article most of which is organized into sections that lay out what readers need to know about EP - its emergence, what makes it different from other branches of psychology and what makes it different from the other human sciences, the kinds of questions it asks, the kinds of methods it uses, and any significant contributions it has made to our understanding of the problems it studies/and answers that have become widely accepted in the human sciences. It is through these sections that the "views" of EP should be explained. Then we need a section on controversies, because EP has been very controversial. But the "controversies" section does not have to include EP views "to provide NPOV" - the ''point'' of a controversies section is to add NPOV to the article which would otherwise provide only the views of EP from the EP perspective. To add EP views to the "controversies" section is '''unnecessary''' because all of that content ''ought'' to be explained ''in context and embedded'' in the explanation of EP, which after all should take up the majority of the article. To add those views to the controversies section is poor style because it disrupts the flow of the section, and it is redundant. | |||
| Mirardre seems to have made a range of major edits in a very short period of time. This is not the kind of collaborative editing Misplaced Pages is best at. I suggest that any major changes to the article (and making more than a few edits to an article that is not a stub in one day is usually pretty major) should be discussed on the talk page first, which is after all what talk pages are for. ] | ] 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It is of course impossible to answer many criticisms before the criticisms have been stated. Specific POV sections with only arguments from one side are also discouraged by WP:NPOV.] (]) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| You are misinterpreting the policy, or my point. The policy says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" and it is precisely the "back-and-forth dialogue" which is ''unencyclopedic'' and that my point is arguing against. Moreover, the policy does not dictate structure, it lays out goals for the article that we have to achieve in the most effective way. You have to acknowledge that an encyclopedia includes different kinds of articles, and different kinds of articles call for different structures. ] | ] 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :"Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." I see no reason for ignoring what WP:NPOV states.] (]) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The kind of narrative you describe is suited to certain kinds of debates. But we are not writing an article about a debate. A controversy is not a debate, which is why this sentence does not apply. | |||
| Mirardre writes, "It is of course impossible to answer many criticisms before the criticisms have been stated." This sentence describes a temporal sequence; s eries of statements are made in order. This sentence only makes sense if it comes from the point of view of someone engaged in a debate. The sentence is applicable only to actual debates. I am referring to two people on stage arguing one against the other - then, obviously, has to wait for a point to be made before responding to it. But Mirardre, you are not here to participate in a debate. None of ue are here to debate. We are here to write articles on views ''other than our own.'' Also, we are here to write about views ''that already have been expressed in reliable sources.'' This is not a debate. ''All'' the views coexist in the same moment in time, they are all out there, already published. Our job is not to reconstruct the precise order in which different sources were written, and present information in the order in which it was published - what a silly way to organize an article. No, we look at ''all the information and views available '''at this time''''' and then we write an article that presents it in whatever form makes it easiest for the reader to understand all views. Researchers in EP may at specific times engage in actual debates. But this article is not about any actual debates. It is about "Evolutionary psychology" which is a branch of science. As a branch of science, EP does not exist in order to have debates with critics of EP - to think so is fundamentally to misunderstand science. As an analogy: an evolutionary biologist may have a debate with a fundamentalist Christian. But the science of evolutionary biology is not pursued through debates with Creationists. Sciences - evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology - work by raising questions about some part of the universe, proposing answers, and seeking means to test or confirm these answers, leading to a better understanding of that part of the universe. These elements - questions, observations, evidence, answers - make sense in relation to one another and are best presented in some way that makes these relationships understandable to readers. ] | ] 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Obviously it is easier for the reader to have the arguments naturally following each other as per WP:NPOV rather than having separate POV sections. See no reason for ignoring WP:NPOV.] (]) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the important point that SLR makes is related to the temporal sequencing of our describing the literature. I am concerned about how the current criticism page is structured like a debate. Instead of weaving the criticisms and responses together in a way that ''describes'' the debate, we are falling into a trap where we ''reenact the debate'' ourselves. The current structure seems to be: criticism stated, followed by, "however, EP suggests that these criticisms are incorrect" (with citation). EP seems to get the 'last word' in these pages. Be aware that we could continue this form of editing by finding sources that support the addition of: "however, critics suggest that the EP rebuttals to the original criticisms are incorrect" (with citation), and that we could do so ad infinitum. The structure is anything but neutral. ] (]) 19:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::The current section is certainly much more neutral than the earlier version with only criticisms. If you have more sourced arguments, please add them. Note of course that the section here should be a summary of the main article. That an argument against another argument is presented after the first argument is usually necessary and does not necessarily imply that either side is correct.] (]) 19:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: May I interject a more general comment here? Much obliged. | |||
| :::: Why is the EP page such a lightning rod for disputes among editors here? It is because EP starts with theoretical POV that ''embraces a certain set of prerequisite assumptions.'' If most everyone shared those fundamental assumptions, it would be an easy article to write. But there is another competing paradigm in the social sciences that embraces at the outset ''a different set of prerequisite assumptions.'' (See the set of assumptions of both ]). | |||
| :::: There is a tendency here for each EP theory, hypothesis or principle to be challenged by folks who do not share the fundamental assumptions of the discipline. And, it gets very tiresome. Folks who don't agree on starting assumptions end up in unproductive debates (to wit: don't talk politics or religion at a dinner party). This constant haggling is about as productive, as noted by Slrubenstein above, as the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. If you just don't share first principles, you will disagree with most everything that is derivative of them. | |||
| :::: As I noted before (upstream somewhere -- I'll find it if someone insists) there actually is a WP policy that gives special exception to theoretical POV articles. They don't have to include the criticisms from the opposing POV at every turn. That is why you don't see Creationist arguments on the Evolution page (or, vice versa). Or, there might be a mention, but the args of the opposing perspectives are not interspersed throughout the article. This is why the main EP page should mostly describe EP. And, that is why it is ok (per WP policy) for a theoretical POV page to fork out to a Criticisms page. This is exactly what is done on the Evolution page. Note: I am not saying that that there should not be criticisms integrated in the EP main page, but the most appropriate ones will be by those who share the same first principles. Some of the most interesting EP debates, IMHO, come from within the field itself. | |||
| :::: This distinction is important here, and it is why it is appropriate to have a main EP page (to describe the discipline) and a Criticisms of EP page ''where even those who do not share the fundamental assumptions of the discipline'' can take their best shot. Otherwise, without a common shared base of fundamental assumptions with which to start, it becomes a food fight on par with what one could imagine would happen if there was a combined Evolution and Creationism page. Precisely why such a page does not exist... However, note that there is a ''controversy'' page, ], where both sides, with their conflicting starting assumptions, can throttle each other with glee and abandon. ] (]) 02:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: This idea of opposing sides amongst contributors is not helpful, although there might indeed be editors with firm prejudices. If these users cannot contribute in a neutral way, which includes describing accurately the theory and its criticisms using secondary sources, they probably should not be editing the article(s). ] (]) 06:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Memills, it is not at all the same situation as with Evolution and criticisms of evolution, or with global warming and the global warming controversy. Evolution is accepted science, and although it is more recent and has more room for uncertainty, so is human-induced climate change. Or what about astronomy articles? If you want to see what happens there, you could usefully come over and comment on ]; how much of the cultural significance and astrology should be in that article, and how much should be in ]? Or look at some of the thousands of articles about politics where you can never ensure that editors have a "shared base of fundamental assumptions". ] (]) 08:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Response to MeMills: Your tactic here has been covered by critics. The SSSM is a false dichotomy created by Cosmides and Tooby. According to EPers, anyone who doesn't believe in EP, must follow the supposed 'SSSM' and are essentially blank-slate behaviorists or cultural determinists. The SSSM is essentially a strawman in both the larger context (since no one really follows anything called the SSSM or even closely related to it), and in this specific one (you suggest that I follow the SSSM when I have expressed to you numerous times and in numerous ways that I do not). '''Yes, I am extremely biased - toward science and reason'''. That is all. If there is consensus that my biases are getting in the way of healthy editing, then I will promptly take my leave. Until then, I stay. You are right - I do not agree with the fundamental assumptions of EP. Neither do a lot of your critics. But it goes both ways. You seem not to understand the fundamental concerns of your critics - and time and time again it has gotten in the way of the criticisms being presented accurately and you finding appropriate rebuttal references that fit the specific critiques. If EP has legitimate responses to their critics, they need to be heard. But you want them to have the last word regardless of whether they have a logical response or not. Most of your 'rebuttals' take the form of: "However, EP has shown these criticisms to be false. Please refer to Confer et al. 2010." You do not in any way show how the criticisms are addressed. And you just gloss over what the conflict is about, weaving Red Herrings throughout. | |||
| :::::::: With regard to having the same fundamental assumptions... you seem to be saying that only criticisms from within EP are to be considered valid. Sounds like religious talk to me. Not that it matters, but I do share some basic assumptions as you. I am a psychologist. I teach at a university. I accept neo-darwinian evolution. I accept that the mind/brain was undoubtedly shaped by evolution. What I (and your critics) question, is what you believe nature selected. It involves a lot of assumptions... long before you start doing 'science.' ] (]) 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is important to remember that in psychology there are many different approaches. There is no single mainstream one. EP is not less accepted than other approaches.] (]) 10:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please stop ]. This talk page is not a ]. Your personal opinions (cf above) have no relevance to this encyclopedia. Thanks, ] (]) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::From '']'': "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." ] (]) 10:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That, however, does not justify the comments in your previous message. ] (]) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That there are several different approaches in psychology? See any introductory textbook. That EP is a "major theoretical perspective" shows that EP is one valid approach.] (]) 10:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Again, this is not a ]. Evolutionary psychology might be an emerging subject, but not one without its problems, according to ]. The article by Downes does not suggest universal acceptance as a viable alternative theory by mainstream psychologists in academia. ] (]) 10:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Many of the replies to my comment above I feel missed my main point. It was pretty simple: it is hard to argue productively when the debaters do not share fundamental starting assumptions. Debates about topics that are ''derivative'' of those different set of assumptions are bound to be unproductive. Thus, better instead to focus argument on the fundamental assumptions. | |||
| :::::::::::::: For example, if one's starting assumption is that humans have 'transcended' biology because they have evolved impressive general, content-free intellectual capacities that give us a free-wheeling capacity for culture, then of course one won't agree with the EP proposition that evolved psychological adaptations that were designed to solve specific ancestral problems have produced a modular brain/mind that channels behavior and results in a shared, universal human nature. | |||
| :::::::::::::: My main points given the above: | |||
| :::::::::::::: (a) Because EP is a theoretical POV, it is appropriate that there be both a main EP page that mostly describes EP and a EP Criticisms page that describes all aspects of the debate, even those arguments derivative of different starting assumptions. | |||
| :::::::::::::: (b) I think the Controversies section, and the start of the Criticisms page should first focus on describing those fundamentally different sets of starting assumptions -- the two basic positions on the nature vs. nurture debate. Call them what you will, I think the list of basic assumptions contrasted by ] vs. the Integrated Model are basically correct. Even if you dislike these labels, they do describe the fundamentally different set of starting assumptions (if it walks and quacks like a duck... regardless of the labels used). So -- again, I think, readers would better served if they were provided with a brief overview of these different starting perspectives. This is inadequately covered now. ] (]) 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I am sympathetic to what you states above but may not the starting assumptions be much deeper than what you suggest? For example, someone wanting to have a world with really true equality between individuals (certainly a noble dream) may prefer to deny that there are significant genetic psychological differences between individuals and that genetics have a significant role in psychology. In this view EP is just another roadkill on the general quest of such denial.] (]) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: Yes. Many of the primary early opponents (including Gould, Rose, etc.) were arguably travelling down the ] pathway. And, this remains true today -- IMO, some of the critics of EP are not so much interested in the basic theory, but what they view as the negative social consequences if the theory were to be validated and become widely known. ] (]) 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| We are now moving away from form to substance. I think that there is some kind of conflict between EP and social scientists. We have to acknowledge this. The question is, how best to write about it? My view: in this conflict each "side" constructs a view of its opponoent. And much of the conflict or rather lack of actual debate is, both sides believe that the image that the other side has of its opponent is wrong. That is, social scientists think that EPs misunderstand social science, and EPs think that social scientists misunderstand evolution. ] | ] 14:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Also, a real social scientists REALLY believes that social forces are real. But most evolutionary psychologists do not. This means that a truly sociological explanation of EP will never be taken seriously by psychologists. That is why no one ever bothers to voice the sociological explanation of EP (even as a criticism). All of these arguments and explanations were aired decades ago in the debate over sociobiology. And they yeilded no results. So, social scientists for the most part just don't bother any more to debate EP. They just go on doing th kind of social science they believe in. This is not a criticism or controversy, it is just a profound divide in the academy and in public understandings of the academy. ] | ] 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree, there is a profound divide in the social sciences. | |||
| : And, perhaps each side creates caricatures of the other side. | |||
| : As an EPer, I can tell you that our side definetely feels misunderstood. Robert Kuzban regularly about this (see, in particular this recent ). | |||
| : However, it may be more of a difference in interests. Some scholars are interested in how people differ, others are more interested in how they are similar. Both are valid, but each side may come to the conclusion that what they do is "more important." | |||
| : (And, can't resist -- EPers do believe that "social forces are real." But, with the caveat that social forces do not spontaneously arise de novo, but rather are channeled by the evolved psychological adaptations that characterize human nature.) ] (]) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::SLR, "Also, a real social scientists REALLY believes that social forces are real. But most evolutionary psychologists do not." I'd sure like to see a citation for that because that's not the impression I've gotten in my reading. Pinker, for example, is an evolutionary psychologist, and he is outspoken about how social forces have changed society (e.g., leading to a dramatic drop in homicide over the last several centuries). If the kind of EP you're opposed to is the kind that doesn't acknowledge the reality of social forces, then I'm opposed to that kind of EP, too. Maybe you and I don't disagree as much as we seem to on this topic. The kind of EP that I support is the kind that Pinker advocates, the kind that also acknowledges the power of social forces. Would that sort of EP be more to your liking? ] (]) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I am expressing my own point of view which I seldom do. So while I would happily answer your questions, I hesitate to, because it is my own view and I am not sure I can give you any citations. But I will say: I am not opposed to EP and that is not why I said what I said. I was stating what I believe to be a fact. It is not an argument against EP nor is it an argument for it. ] | ] 19:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :SLR, "I am not opposed to EP." Excellent. Welcome to the club. ] (]) 14:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Do you seriously think this is a club? If you think EP is a club, let's rewrite the lead of this article to say it is a club and not a science. | |||
| Or do you think editing an article is something to do with clubs? Do you belong to some club of editors? What a disingenuous way to edit articles. I want no part of that. ] | ] 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Memills writes, "social forces do not spontaneously arise de novo, but rather are channeled by the evolved psychological adaptations that characterize human nature." No social scientist claims that social forces arise spontaneously de novo (if this is nor a redundancy). But Memills claim may help us identify one critical point of controversy: how does one distinguish between behaviors that are best explained in terms of evolved psychological adaptations, and other social dynamics? What kinds of evidence are demonstrative of one explanation or the other? | |||
| Memills statement points to a second point of controversy: at what point does this become tautologous? No social scientist questions that the human brain is the result of evolution. Therefore, all human behaviors must be possible within the limits of our evolution ... just as all of our behaviors must be possible within the laws of physics. But the fact that people who fly and people who swim and people who walk are all obeying the laws of physics does not mean that the laws of physics are at all helpful in understanding this variation. So now let's look at a society that considers cannibalism abhorrent; people who practice a kind of highly constrained form of cannibalism (e.g. Catholic and orthodox Christians who drink the blood of Christ); people who practice endocannibalism, and people who practice exocannibalism. Obviously all four kinds of behaviors must be possible within the terms of human evolution. Wny one society holds a practice normative, that another society considers unacceptable, is precisely the kind of question social scientists believe they can answer without reference to an evolved mind, beyond very basic points that both societies are composed of people with minds capable of symbolic thought through which contrasting behaviors are construed to be meaningful or disgusting. But beyond that they claim that the theory of evolution is no more necessary than the theory of gravity. Does EP claim that in this case social scientists are wrong? I think this is an issue that any controversies section has to address. ] | ] 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: So what's so wrong about cannibalism? :-) | |||
| :: Let me comment on your statement: ''how does one distinguish between behaviors that are best explained in terms of evolved psychological adaptations, and other social dynamics? What kinds of evidence are demonstrative of one explanation or the other?'' This betrays a nature ''versus'' nurture dichotomy. But that debate is over: it is always both. The fact that some social scientists believe that we have transcended out biology, and social forces act independently from biology (or, have such minor effect that they can be largely ignored) is incorrect. They cry ''reductionism''! Reductionism is standard scientific procedure, ''as long as one appreciates that the interactions among the parts of a system can produce emergent properties'' (interaction effects). But those interaction effects, while damn complex, are still not random or unconstrained. | |||
| You are not responding to my point. You are raising a red herring. I did not say anything about nature versus nurture, and it is a misunderstanding - perhaps sincere - to suggest my comment implies anything about nature versus nurture. I was raising a question about disciplinary boundaries - anthropologists and literary critics may both look at a novel as "data" but they will ask different questions, that are answered using different methods. EP cannot explain everything, just as physics and biologic cannot explain everything. So there must be limits. I am now repeating myself. I am sorry if you do not understand, this is a basic matter in any science and it has nothing to do with nature versus nurture. But we have been discussing the best way to organize the controversies section, and I was suggesting one point of controversy worth addressing. Talk pages are for talking about ways to improve the article. If you do not think this is a real debate between evolutionary psychologists and non-evolutionary psychologists, e.g. social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, then just say "I do not think that this is appropriate for the article." I am not here to have a chat with you. ] | ] 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: So, why is there variation among cultures re the acceptability of cannibalism? Can human nature be safely ignored when this variability is studied? No. The question becomes, given human nature, under what conditions is cannibalism more likely to be accepted by a culture? Certainly, eating out-group members is generally far more common that eating in-group members (especially high status ones) due to human nature. This fact belies a evolved psychology that we would do well to take into account when we try to understand cultural variability. Bottom line: cultures don't vary randomly, nor could they engage in any possible conceivable behavior, because they are a distal product of human nature. | |||
| :: With that said, I'm in the mood for nice glass of Chianti. ] (]) 18:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| You introduce nature again, which is not the question. I can tell you that anthropologists who are experts on this topic will tell you that your claim "eating out-group members is generally far more common that eating in-group members (especially high status ones) due to human nature" is silly. Do evolutionary psychologists really say this? If they do not, why did you bring it up? if they do, then, as I said, this may be an important point of controversy worth highlighting in the article. Your answer certainly shows a real ignorance of the answers provided by anthropologists, so are you saying that Evolutionary Psychology is answering a different question than anthropologists, or that EP claims to displace anthropology? The question is, how to improve the controversies section. I am assuming your comments come from somewhere, so I am trying to use them as a basis for making serious points for improving the article - not, as I said, to have a chat with you. ] | ] 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :SLR, when there are reports of cannibalism, it's usually a case of eating outsiders, not eating insiders. There are exceptions, such as the people who eat the brains of the dead and contract kuru kuru. But overall cannibalism toward outsiders is more common than cannibalism toward insiders, wouldn't you agree? Alternatively, if MeMills has said something silly, here's the chance to find a good source and put him in his place. ] (]) 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I am not making my quantitative claims. In the Amazon, the Tupinamba practiced exocannibalism, an the Wari practice endocannibalism. I personally am uninterested in the question of which one is more common, although I am sure there are some researchers who care about precisely this question - this gets back to my point about how one difference between EP and social psychologists or sociologists may be what questions they ask even when looking at the same phenomenon. My point stands even if only one society in the world practiced exocannibalism and only one practiced endocannibalism - the question is still, why do they do it? My point was that many social scientists believe that they can believe in the the theory evolution, much as they believe in the theory of gravity, without believing that it is at all helpful in understanding why the Tupinamba and the Wari had such contrasting forms of cannibalism, an why the Mehinaku don't practice any form of cannibalism at all. Do EPers accept the validity of this position or not? This page is to discuss improvements to the articles. I am trying to suggest an improvement to the controversies section. If EP-ers DO accept the validity of this position, there is no controversy (in this regard). If they do not accept the validity of this position, then this would be a real controversy and one we should cover. ] | ] 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: My in- vs out-group distinction was derived from inclusive fitness theory (don't know if EPers have actually studied cannibalism in relation to inclusive fitness or not). That's my point -- basic EP theories are heuristic in that they can be used make predictions that a pure 'blank slate' or 'culture is free from biology' perspective could not make. ] (]) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Page numbers == | |||
| From ] "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." Who wants to start finding page numbers in the books cited? Come on, you know you want to. ] (]) 19:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Sense of "targets"? == | |||
| Can this sentence "Problems of survival are thus clear targets for the evolution of physical and psychological adaptations." be reworded, as it is not clear what "targets" would mean. Also not clear what "thus" refers to. I am tagging "clarify". ] (]) 10:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I wrote that sentence, and it is indeed awkward. Perhaps: "Physical and psychological adaptations have evolved to solve recurrent ancestral problems related to individual survival and reproduction." ] (]) 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Do adaptations evolve? And do we have a source for it? ] (]) 16:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't even need a ref, it is part of the definition of an evolutionary adaptation itself. But this slight redundancy in the sentence might be forgiven in that it helps to clarify the point to a novice reader on the topic ] (]) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I found from the page ], that you are using the word in a rather loose way. "Adaptive trait" is the more precise term, is it not? But, as you say, this is an obvious tautology, and I don't see that the sentence is needed. I know that you teach this stuff at higher education level. In the course materials that you write you have sole responsibility and can spell out concepts at the length and in the depth you deem appropriate. You are trying to get your students to grasp general Darwinian theory alongside the specifics of EP. This is only a short encyclopedia article and we have to come to the point quickly. ] (]) 16:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If I recall correctly, I wrote that sentence at the start of the "Problems of Survival" subsection simply as an intro topic sentence to transition into the content of the section. I've no objections to simply deleting it (the same point is made earlier in the article). ] (]) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Abnormal section, revisited. == | |||
| Judith deleted the table in the abnormal psych section. In previous long debates about it, the conclusion was that Maunus volunteered to write prose equivalent to the content in the table. He did not do so. | |||
| LogicPrevails now complains of SYN. No surprise. His previous complaint about it was OR... but whatever sticks on the wall, eh? | |||
| Without the table, the section does not adequately describe this subfield. In fact, what is left is mostly the lengthy critique written by LogicPrevails, who has previously state that he thinks these hypotheses are incorrent and dangerous. | |||
| But folks are coming to this page to learn about EP theories and hypotheses. Doesn't matter if the postulates are wrong or not -- that's not our job to decide here. Let's not eviscerate the article by deleting relevant content. | |||
| I think the table offers advantages of clarity and brevity over equivalent prose for a brief subsection, so keeping it is obviously my preference. However, if someone wants to replace the table with equivalent prose, go for it. Perhaps Leadwind, who has perhaps written more new content here than anyone (a pretty thankless job at times)? ] (]) 22:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you could avoid charges of ] (or more correctly unclear sources) if you exactly sourced each specific argument to one or more specific sources instead of there being at the top an unclear "Summary based on information in" .] (]) 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's right. Compiling info, even good info, into a table violates policy on original synthesis. Instead, you should summarise what the sources say. Just one caveat before you start on that. I am bearing in mind that we are being told that Panksepp's work can't be used because it is a primary source. The same criteria must apply to psychologists sympathetic to EP and those unsympathetic to it. ] (]) 00:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here is the policy regarding primary sources: ] ] (]) 00:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, thanks, I know the policy. We have a slight difficulty, of nobody here's making. That is, that the definition of primary is different in the social and natural sciences, and this topic sits squarely over the two. In the natural sciences, as the policy says "papers reporting on experiments" are primary. We prefer systematic reviews of the scientific literature. In the social sciences systematic reviews are thin on the ground and academic papers tend to incorporate literature reviews. Virtually all the sources here are ordinary peer-reviewed academic papers and academic books. If we declare all of them primary, then we could be left with no article. One way forward is to take more notice of the citation indices, book reviews and so forth. ] (]) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Given these concerns, I will research and reference primary sources for each hypothesis in the table. This would be a helpful addition. But, some forbearance, please. It might take me a bit of time since I have some deadlines approaching on some other writing projects. Should any others find that this topic piques their curiosity / interest, feel free to join in the fun. ] (]) 02:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: MeMills, for reasons that we already argued way back when, I think the editors here would prefer to see you change the format from table (which is your synthesis and original research) to prose, where editors can more easily make edits, changes, and revisions. I never objected to the material being presented - only the format. ] (]) 09:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Memills, you likely do not need the primary sources. The sources already given are likely fine if you just specify for each statement which of the source(s) that apply.] (]) 10:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Judith, "Compiling info, even good info, into a table violates policy on original synthesis." Really? Could you cite the policy that says that? My read on synthesis is that it's wrong when you're trying to make a point that the sources don't make. When we put information from multiple sources into a table, that's like putting information from multiple sources into a paragraph. It's not synthesis unless you're trying to make a novel argument that the sources don't make. ] (]) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| If someone can show us that assembling information into prose is OK but assembling the same information into a table violates policy, I'll reluctantly assume the job that Maunus didn't do and put the same material into text. ] (]) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : A new synthesis of material is arguably ], and is against wiki policy. We've had this discussion before. Reproduction of an existing table (by a legitimate source), is one thing, but a single editor synthesizing controversial information into a compressed format is inappropriate and against ]. Synthesizing information into a table involves some degree of editor bias (in what they choose to include/exclude). It also means that information becomes 'nested' in the table; it is more difficult to make changes, additions, corrections, or refutations down the road. Think about it this way... would you be okay with me constructing a massive table detailing the criticisms of EP? Of course not, because it would involve my personal opinion/bias of what the criticisms are, and it makes it difficult to weave what you might view as neutral content into the table. Since the table is treated as an entire 'unit,' it is harder to refute without rejecting the whole table. Prose makes it easier for other editors to make changes, additions, corrections, (e.g. collaborative editing) and it also makes it more clear as to where the information came from (more easily verifiable). ] (]) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: LogicPrevails -- I would have no objection if you created a table that accurately summarized and referenced both the criticisms of EP and the rebuttals. In fact, I think that would be a great addition to the Criticisms of EP page. Also, multiple editors can, and should, edit a summary table in the same way that they edit prose (all of the summary tables on this page indeed have been edited by multiple editors). As long as someone doesn't interject something new (conclusion "C") that isn't in any of the original sources, I don't see it as SYN. ] (]) 00:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further to this. Since the table is derived from multiple sources, and gives no indication of where individual sections are derived, it isn't properly cited. ] (]) 15:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Andy -- as I noted above, I have already volunteered to do just that. ] (]) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously there are some cases where it's OK to compile a table. You can arrange sports players into their teams, so long as everything is cited. But making up a table like this is both OR and SYNTH because of the amount of selection involved. We had a long and acrimonious dispute a few years ago on ] because someone wanted to put different sources together to show how much solar can contribute compared to other kinds of energy. That was ruled OR in the end, and this is even more OR than that was. ] (]) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If a table is a condensed summary of information from sourced textbooks, and, in addition if specific primary sources are referenced for each hypothesis as requested, I see the table as no more OR or SYN than the equivalent information presented in prose (as Leadwind noted above). | |||
| :::: Reluctantly, I must admit again to some skepticism that the underlying motives for a couple of editors here is really just limited to following WP policy. There have been too many previous instances where the addition of most ''any'' substantive new and sourced information, in whatever form, has been resisted and challenged, or, appropriate and sourced material has been wholly deleted. In fact, as is well documented in the archives, most every substantive contribution Leadwind or others have added in the past year or so has suffered this obstructionism, by the same couple of editors who arguably or admittedly have some antipathy toward the discipline. | |||
| :::: I have volunteered to provide primary references for each hypothesis, as several editors above have suggested. However, again, if Leadwind, or someone else, would like to translate the table into prose, fine by me. In the meantime, the deletion of this content leaves mostly a critique of material that isn't even there -- and makes the subsection misrepresentative and incomplete. ] (]) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree with you. Further, as stated earlier, there is no need for other sources than those already given if it is clearly shown which statement has which source(s).] (]) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Judith, "But making up a table like this is both OR and SYNTH because of the amount of selection involved." If you can back that statement up with a reference to policy, I'll support your efforts to exclude the table. Please back that statement up with a reference to policy. ] (]) 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I am not a domain expert by any means but I can see there are many ways that synthesis and OR are likely to occur in developing a table that structures knowledge about a topic, especially one that is as complex as EP. The most obvious synthesis in this case is the assumption that each of the sources means the same thing by each of the terms that label the rows and columns. (I am not familiar with the sources but I doubt they actually use the same terms.) I suggest converting the table into a plain list that will allow editors to draw the distinctions that may be required to present the material without synthesis or OR. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The edit war is beneath you guys. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::1, please cite policy. 2, please propose alternative text. ] (]) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not making a blanket statement about policy concerning tables, synthesis and OR. The policy I am working from is standard OR and SYN policy. I consider the table ''likely'' to include SYN and OR because it inherently "says" that all the sources are of one voice with respect to 1) the way the material is organized and 2) the interpretation of the terms that label the rows and columns. ]. Please address the issue of the table as a hindrance to editorial refinement. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi, Leadwind, it is pretty obvious from ]. | |||
| ::::<blockquote>Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.</blockquote> | |||
| ::::Note that policy closely relates the concepts of OR and SYNTH. The table I deleted was certainly a combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply conclusions that none of the sources reached on their own. Memills is fully entitled to compile info in this way for the enlightenment of his own students, who have paid tuition fees in order to benefit from original research. As far as I know, he could put it into Wikiversity. He can write it in a scholarly article which we might then cite. But he can't put it straight into Misplaced Pages. Could you please help me explain that to him. | |||
| ::::We could also post on WP:NORN for opinions, but there is a bit of a backlog. I comment there myself sometimes, so I have a feeling for the kinds of advice usually given. ] (]) 08:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Judith, "The table I deleted was certainly a combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply conclusions that none of the sources reached on their own." What's the "conclusion C" that Memills is promoting? If there's no "Conclusion C," then it's not SYNTH. Where does the policy say that you can assemble information from different sources into paragraphs but not into tables? ] (]) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In paragraphs, we move from one point to another in a linear way. In a table, there is juxtaposition in columns too, and that juxtaposition implies connection. If the source presented in the information in text format then we should stick to that. If the source has a table, then we can reproduce the table if that doesn't raise copyright concerns. Usually, we leave out the sources' tables because that is part of the normal process of summarising. ] (]) 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Agree with Leadwind that there is no OR or SYN new "conclusion C" that is not in the original sources. A foundational idea in evolutionary psychiatry is that the causal underpinnings of psychological adaptations and their failure/dysfunction are analogous to physiological ones. As noted in the table, there are several different types of causes of physiological adaptation failure/dysfunction, and, again, understanding how these might be analogous to psychological dysfunction might be productive. One particular value of the table is that it makes this analogy clear by listing a type of dysfunction cause, a physiological example is listed, and a possible psychological example is listed. Imho, I believe the table format helps to summarize and illustrate these analogies better than could equivalent prose). | |||
| ::::::: What I find particularly disconcerting is the eagerness by a few editors to jettison sourced content without providing for its replacement, and doing so based on reference to fairly fine print policy that editors could legitimately interpret differently. ] (]) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Taking this to ] for attention. ] (]) 18:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The citations for this table are cryptic and appear incomplete (page numbers? publishers?) and I do not see them in the list of references: Buss, D.M. (2011), Evolutionary Psychology; Gaulin & McBurney (2004), Evolutionary Psychology; Workman & Reader (2004), Evolutionary Psychology. Please help me out and consider improving the refs. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: As noted above, I have agreed to add primary source references for each hypothesis in the table. Also, will check the textbook refs and make sure they are complete, with page numbers. Also, I just clarified the headings in the table ] (]) 18:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wouldn't mind just knowing what the three sources that are mentioned are referring to. Please tell me. Thanks. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The three sources are all textbooks with the same title ''Evolutionary Psychology.'' I have fix the references in the table heading to note that, and included the publisher in the refs. ] (]) 21:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that would be a good start. In principle every cell needs at least one source, including the physiological information. Is this the way that the best sources on animal physiology lay out the different kinds of adaptation, exaptation etc.? Do psychologists agree on the human psychology/behaviour parallels given in the right hand column, or do we need to point out disagreements on those? ] (]) 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The psychological dysfunctions noted in the right hand column of the table, labled ''Hypothesized Psychological Example,'' are best described as hypotheses, rather than principles, at this point. However, there is some empirical corroborating research for most all of these (again, I'll provide the refs to the specific studies in each cell of the table). | |||
| ::::: Most clinical psychologists have had no graduate level training in clinical evolutionary psychology / evolutionary psychiatry, so they are generally unfamiliar with it or have scant knowledge. LogicPrevails has provided a critique of this approach in this subsection. ] (]) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Here is the language from : | |||
| :SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. It's likely that none of the sources summarize exactly the same set of information. But if it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Misplaced Pages policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process". | |||
| ==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
| The table is consistent with this policy. It is a summary from reliable sources (textbooks, and soon, primary sources as well), it is NPOV (simply describes EP hypotheses), and it is doesn't make any proposals / conclusions that are not the sources. ] (]) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-08-20">20 August 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-05">5 December 2018</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ], ]. | |||
| {{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I am new to this discussion but I do not see where the synthesis problem has been related to the summary nature of the material. My understanding of the synthesis issue for tables is that they may categorize and organize information in new ways that go beyond what the sources do. This is subtle because meaning is inherent in the structure and layout of the information in addition to the linear wording of plain text. Do all the sources agree on the terminology used to label the rows and columns? If not there may be synthesis. Is there any source that has similarly organized this information at least in plain text? If not, there may be synthesis. Until I find out what the sources are, the rest of you will have to answer these questions. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == NPOV == | |||
| This topic is misleading. | |||
| :: As noted above, the secondary sources are listed in the table heading. These are evolutionary psychology textbooks that present this information as is reflected in the table. (Also, available online is , a book chapter by evolutionary psychiatrist Randy Nesse.) I don't think anyone in the field of EP, or evolutionary psychiatry, would find the hypotheses listed in the table as unrepresentative of the published literature in the field (although someone might be aware of more recent research or hypotheses that I've yet to read). | |||
| :: Again, as noted above, primary references for each cell in the table are to be added. | |||
| :: So if you think the table is a representative summary, you too just might be an EPer. ] (]) 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The "ethics" discussion revolves around political positions and concerns belonging to pure philosophy and to human sciences but not to natural sciences. | |||
| ::: Memills wrote: "I would have no objection if you created a table that accurately summarized and referenced both the criticisms of EP and the rebuttals." You are proving one of my points here. You would want a 'column' that has rebuttals in a table that summarized criticisms of EP. If this abnormal table stays, rest assured I will create another column that consists of just that in your table, which will make an already large table absolutely ridiculous. | |||
| The discussion on ethics uses a fallacy fallacy to attack EP, and naturally since it is fallacious also the whole matter falls into infinite regression. | |||
| ::: A second point I want to draw attention to, is the use of the word 'hypothesis' in this table. What is presented here are 'speculations' or, if we are generous, 'working hypotheses.' It is disingenuous to suggest to the reader that these speculations have been developed into testable theories. ] (]) 09:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Editors are pushing views under the allegation a reliable source has not been presented to necessary edits, when it was, however initially mischaracterized. | |||
| :::: This may surprise you LogicP, but I generally would not much object to you adding an "objections" column to the table (or, perhaps a less confrontational label, a "contrary evidence," column). In fact, many review articles do have such tables with columns that list studies that, for each hypothesis, have found either corroborative or non-corroborative empirical findings. However, the problem with doing so here is that (a) this is not a Criticisms page (there is one already), (b) these are EP "working hypotheses," not yet firmly established conclusions, and this is so noted in the table header, and (c) the objections of critics are not so much to any specific hypothesis in the table, but to the more general application of adaptationist thinking to the field (based on a contrary set of 'starting assumptions,' as I discussed above), and so such general criticisms would not fit neatly in any specific table cell. But, you have already provided prose that describes these general objections in the subsection, and, thank you for that. | |||
| :::: Contrary to your assertion that none of the hypotheses are testable, several of them already have been. And many of the empirical research findings are generally corroborative. For example, there is good evidence that mild depression triggered by a recent personal setback is functional (and, I will provide these refs in the table). ] (]) 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Prescriptive, not descriptive, ethical positions do not concern natural sciences. EP doesn't make or promote prescriptive ethics or values. | |||
| == "" == | |||
| If third parties make prescriptive claims utilizing EP the third parties themselves should be addressed, an not EP on malicious, unrelated and incompatible philosophical grounds. ] (]) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This source for the ] is a self-published web page for an EP program at UT. I understand it makes a convenient source for a summary of the field and I suppose it's technically reliable (at least implicitly approved by David Buss if not his own words) but it's not a stable document and generally a weak source. The other summary (EP Primer) for that section is also self published but at least it lists primary sources and names the authors. Isn't there a summary that's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a book, or a magazine like Scientific American or National Geographic? <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Self-published sources by an already established expert are not unreliable. Although something better would of course be preferable.] (]) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree, though the page is not clearly authored by Buss. I would guess the page text came from something he's gotten published elsewhere with clear authorship. I suggest using that. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::The authors of the article (among whom I no longer count myself) also need to make a decision about whether to define EP broadly as all evolutionary approaches to psychology (in which case even Freud would require mention - as well as all the non-modular mind psychologists that use evolutionary approaches)or narrowly as the Santa Cruz/UT school. If they want to use the broad definition (which has previously been the stated opinion of the authors) then they need to address the fact that Buss does not speak for Ep broadly construed. ]·] 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Textbooks in the field list these EP principles, and, reference the same websites. There are additional published sources, but don't think we need them here if the textbooks use these too. ] (]) 04:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Moralistic_fallacy | |||
| == Is there an agreed referencing style? == | |||
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Slippery_slope ] (]) 22:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Looking over the ] I can't tell if there is a predominant ]. Has there been any attempt to arrive at a consensus as to how to manage references? If not I think it would improve both the article and the editorial climate. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Instead of continually making vague complaints like this, both here and at ], you need to get specific. Either add reliably sourced material - and no unsourced commentary - or else make a case that existing material misrepresents relevant sources or uses unreliable sources. I am by no means anti-evolutionary psychology; but you need to stick to what sources say. Editors' personal opinions are not relevant. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :No and yes. People have been too busy editing to worry about minutiae like referencing. I started working through them but came to a stop because of the page number question. Any work on consistency would be really good, just choose what style you are most used to, start adopting it throughout, and I will join in when I have a minute. ] (]) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone== | |||
| == Page numbers II == | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Alabama_at_Birmingham/Psychology_Capstone_(Summer_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-05-09 | end_date = 2022-08-06 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)</span> | |||
| As I think we all know, the onus is on those who want material included to provide full bibliographical details including page numbers in books. Take a month, when I wont' be on Misplaced Pages much anyway. Add all the page numbers. In September I will go through and remove all statements that aren't fully supported. That's reasonable, I think. ] (]) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone== | |||
| : Even formal scientific publications don't use page numbers, unless one is directly quoting from another source. And WP policy only says "use page numbers when appropriate." Sounds like a set-up for motivated removal of material on a flimsy justification that no page numbers were given. N] (]) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Alabama_at_Birmingham/Psychology_Capstone_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ], ], ], ] | start_date = 2024-08-26 | end_date = 2024-12-06 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 23:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::] asking page number is not unreasonable especially when is a source. Secondly she is suggesting doing in a month and half from now giving you time to add it all in. Removed material can re-added with appropriate source at any time. Cite it properly and the issue is done. ] <small>]•(])</small> 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsupported assertions seem inaccurate or misleading == | |||
| ::: Not much would be left of WP under the "cite the page number or I will delete it" rationale. Shall we start with the Cultural Anthropology page first? And, even with large books, most do have indexes at the back to track down particular topics. ] (]) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You will find that this is standard. Please do work to improve the ] page in whatever way is called for. I don't think I have ever visited so don't know what its problems may be. ] (]) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Interesting question. Where is the policy? ] (]) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think the policy would be ]. If you cite a book and no one can find the text in the book that supports the statement in the article then the statement fails verifiability. Adding page numbers will help ensure the statement can be verified. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| In the following paragraph taken from the Scope>Principles section of this article: | |||
| ::::::: Here is the relevant policy -- ]: "Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole." | |||
| ::::::: Should an editor wish further verification with a page number(s), rather than deleting material, a reasonable request would be to simply ask for the page number(s) (perhaps with a tag, if there is one, or, on the Talk page), or ask for additional supporting references. Someone may have easy access to the reference source (e.g., a book), or other relevant ones. Also, the editor making the request can do a bit of research and find the relevant page numbers (again, a book index is a nice tool for this). | |||
| ::::::: Tags are used in WP to ask for further clarification, or for a supporting reference, etc. without deleting content. AGF suggests that content should not be deleted when a reference is given, but only lacks a page number(s). Only when it is determined that the reference does not support the statement after thorough vetting on the Talk page should such content be deleted. ] (]) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This policy makes sense to me. I suggest that we list statements whose refs cannot be verified here on the talk page with a request for sufficient information about the source(s) to allow verification. For requests that are addressed, the related statement would then be subject to normal verification. We delete statements whose request is not addressed within 4 weeks. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| "Evolutionary psychology adopts an understanding of the mind that is based on the ]. It describes mental processes as computational operations, so that, for example, a fear response is described as arising from a neurological computation that inputs the perceptional data, e.g. a visual image of a spider, and outputs the appropriate reaction, e.g. fear of possibly dangerous animals. Under this view, any ] is impossible because of the ]." | |||
| ::::::::: A more constructive and helpful approach would be to do the research needed to add page numbers for references that lack them, and add it. By analogy, if you find a book reference that lacks information about the publisher, find that information and add it. | |||
| ::::::::: The default perspective is to respect AGF (assume good faith of the editors). Given AGF and the policy that page numbers are used "when appropriate" and are not required when the source is an entire book or article, the onus of doing page number research falls on the editor who would like to add that information, not on other editors. The lack of a page number(s) for a reference is insufficient basis to delete content (with the exception of a direct quote). In this case, it is only appropriate to delete sourced content when it is clearly determined that the reference does not support the claim or fact. AGF creates the default assumption that the reference does support the target prose. | |||
| ::::::::: A request for page numbers is fine, but it does not create an obligatory burden for other editors, nor create a default justification for removal. Given the WP policy on page numbers and AGF, a "threat" to remove content is inappropriate: "someone find the page number(s) for this (in X amount of time), or I will delete it." Again, with the exception of a direct quote, the lack of a page number(s) in a reference is in itself insufficient grounds for deletion of content. ] (]) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If a source cannot be verified because the citation lacks page numbers then it violates ]. Page numbers should be included when citing specific material in a book. The only time page numbers are not required is when citing the whole book. In addition, enough information should be included to allow someone to be sure they have the same edition of the book. It does not violate AGF to require sources be specific enough so a reader can verify it. AGF means providing a reasonable period for verification to be established before deleting a reference. Remember: "Trust but verify." <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 21:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I believe that what prompted this issue was that Judith requested a reference via a tag for the statement that EP suggests that females are more sexually "coy" than are males. I provided a book reference (Symons, The Evolution of Human Sexuality). Judith then started this subsection here on the Talk page because she may have thought that a book reference without page numbers was insufficient in this case. Actually, it is sufficient. The issue of female coyness is addressed many times throughout that book, and providing all of these page numbers would be impractical and unnecessary. Further, the index lists page numbers related to that topic. Had Judith looked at the reference she would have noticed this. It is not incumbent on me to provide page numbers for this reference. | |||
| ::::::::::: Policy only states to use page numbers "when appropriate." "Verifiability" does require one to provide a specific page number(s) for a reference, unless it is a direct quote. It might be helpful when possible and when "appropriate" (which is open to some interpretation). The default policy is that the only time deletion of material would be appropriate on this basis is when (a) an editor has researched the source (looked at the index, etc.), (b) could not find any material in the source to support the content that is referenced, and, preferably (c) has asked other editors for help on the Talk page. | |||
| ::::::::::: The default deletion of material that is otherwise properly referenced is not WP policy. If you wish, we can submit this issue for review. ] (]) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Yes, please. Let's get some other opinions. By my reading, ]is clear that page numbers are required for books and long articles unless the ref is for the whole document. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 19:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: How can one tell if the ref is for the whole document? For example, the book I mentioned above is about many other things than just female sexual coyness (and that topic is mentioned many times in many places). How is this so noted in the reference citation? It isn't. So the default is to assume that the situation is as I described (the reference refers to the entire source, or the topic is mentioned in many different places in the source), which is not against policy. The only way to tell if it against policy is to actually look up the reference, and either (a) find the one page (or one page range) where the topic is discussed and edit the reference citation to add this, or (b) look up the reference and document that the reference is not relevant. One cannot, by default, assume that it was inappropriate to have a reference citation without page numbers. ] (]) 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: It's the ] of the editor citing the source to add the page numbers. If there are multiple pages that could be used then pick the best pages for verifying the statements and list them. The whole document should be referenced (without page numbers) only when the topic is the document. ]. This is very basic ], not worth arguing about. Let's get some authoritative opinions and settle it. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) Just visiting today, may not be back for a while. I did ask nicely first about page numbers. It wasn't in relation to the coyness thing. I have done other donkey work on referencing, and I don't mind that, so long as others are willing to do their bit too. We ask those who add material to add the page numbers because it is easiest to do this as you go along. It means that we can take on trust that the material really does come from the book without having to obtain paper copies of everything. Try searching for "page numbers" in the archive of ]. It has come up before, believe me, and on articles far more controversial than this. ], anyone? ] (]) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Seems to make a number of what seem clearly overstated or dubious claims about Evolutionary Psychology: | |||
| :I happen to have the Symons book, it is a classic although a bit old. But I certainly agree we need to provide page numbers. The point of the book is NOT that women are more coy than males. It is standard practice to provide just the book or article title if the claim being cited is the central claim of the book or article. That does not apply to Symons, which runs through a whole set of hypotheses based on sexual selection. For any specific claim to be verifiable, you need to provide a page number. Now, I did not add this to the article but whoever did should add the page numbers. It is not a claim made throughout the whole book. ] | ] 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| 1) That EP believes all behavior is based in a computational theory of mind. | |||
| :: Since you have the book, why not just add a page number(s)? End of story. But, I'll do it myself, since I am the editor who added the reference. The problem is with references that were added by editors no longer here. | |||
| :: From ] "Citations for books typically include: ...chapter or page number(s) where appropriate." Again, "appropriate" is not defined. Also: For "Citations for individually authored chapters in books: ...the chapter number or page numbers for the chapter are optional." Note "optional." ] says nothing about page numbers. | |||
| :: I've nothing against including page numbers in references when possible or "appropriate." My point is that lack of page numbers for books is insufficient justification to declare the reference is "unverified." AGF suggests that it is appropriate. Sure, it might be improved if an editor wished to add page numbers. By analogy, if a book reference lacked the name of the publisher it would be more appropriate and consistent with the mission and spirit of WP to add that information than it would be to delete valuable content that a previous editor worked hard on to research and write. ] (]) 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| 2) That computational procedures are deterministic | |||
| :::Style guidelines are not policy. The policy on page numbers is unambiguous. The foundation policy is ]. ] for long articles and books are required for verifiability unless the topic itself is the whole work. ] says that the editor adding the material to the article is responsible for verifiable references, i.e. references with page numbers. | |||
| :::It's clear that the editing community here has been slack in adhering to policy. Nevertheless, if a reference is unverifiable then policy requires that we remove the material. I think setting a 4 week deadline for compliance is reasonable. <font color="#500000">]</font><font color="#005000">]</font> 20:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| 3) That domain-general learning is incompatible with EP | |||
| Any time something is contentious - and the idea that females are more coy than men is pretty contentious - our standards of verification go up. It is more important to be very precise not only about the citation (e.g. page number) but about the view (what ''exactly'' does Symons say) and the context. What makes something contentious? more than one editor questioning. ] | ] 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I was invited to join and apologize for not reading carefully through this thread. Pages numbers '''are''' required for books (and other lengthy sources; I know no definition of "lengthy", but something more than 1-2 dozen of pages). There are obvious reasons for that and I will mention just a couple: (i) imagine there is a ref to a google book on the use of some chemical. I search that book and find a dozen of pages to that chemical within that book. Which one should I read? This is especially annoying when Google preview is limited and it is a daily wikipedia reality for me. (ii) Some refs can be identified as broken simply by comparing the provided page number with the book source (no such page; another, similar book or edition was meant), i.e., having a complete reference does help. ] (]) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jojalozzo asked me to voice my opinion here. Although I know nothing about the article or the specifics of this problem, I agree that ] requires that all contested content is made verifiable through references, and per ], such references must include page numbers unless the book as a whole supports the contested statement (which is rare). If requested page numbers are not provided, policy requires that the contested material is deleted until they are provided. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Same request and in fact the same answer. It's rare not to need page numbers. ] (]) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| My (lay-informed) understanding of EP is that while some researchers with extreme views might believe some of this, it is by no means a widespread view in the field. In particular, the idea that domain-general learning is incompatible with EP seems preposterous. The fact that these statements are all uncited with evidence makes me want to strike the entire set of sentences from the article. Thoughts? Advice? ] (]) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Caution: The spate of new editors to this discussion seems to have been initiated at the invitation of Jojalozzo. This could be interpreted as a ]. | |||
| Also, the above do not directly address my concerns, which I have outlined above. ] (]) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:41, 28 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolutionary psychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
There currently exists an Evolutionary Psychology Temp Page for the purposes of trying to provide an outline for the evolutionary psychology article and of minimizing the edit wars at the main article, as well.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atomic1City*Blonde, ThePurpleButton.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
NPOV
This topic is misleading.
The "ethics" discussion revolves around political positions and concerns belonging to pure philosophy and to human sciences but not to natural sciences.
The discussion on ethics uses a fallacy fallacy to attack EP, and naturally since it is fallacious also the whole matter falls into infinite regression.
Editors are pushing views under the allegation a reliable source has not been presented to necessary edits, when it was, however initially mischaracterized.
Prescriptive, not descriptive, ethical positions do not concern natural sciences. EP doesn't make or promote prescriptive ethics or values.
If third parties make prescriptive claims utilizing EP the third parties themselves should be addressed, an not EP on malicious, unrelated and incompatible philosophical grounds. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Moralistic_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Slippery_slope ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of continually making vague complaints like this, both here and at Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology, you need to get specific. Either add reliably sourced material - and no unsourced commentary - or else make a case that existing material misrepresents relevant sources or uses unreliable sources. I am by no means anti-evolutionary psychology; but you need to stick to what sources say. Editors' personal opinions are not relevant. Crossroads 22:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whitb05 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Joyb3 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carlysoenksen (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bells7, Evynnh76, Kayedwards0, Kpatel0820.
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Unsupported assertions seem inaccurate or misleading
In the following paragraph taken from the Scope>Principles section of this article:
"Evolutionary psychology adopts an understanding of the mind that is based on the computational theory of mind. It describes mental processes as computational operations, so that, for example, a fear response is described as arising from a neurological computation that inputs the perceptional data, e.g. a visual image of a spider, and outputs the appropriate reaction, e.g. fear of possibly dangerous animals. Under this view, any domain-general learning is impossible because of the combinatorial explosion."
Seems to make a number of what seem clearly overstated or dubious claims about Evolutionary Psychology:
1) That EP believes all behavior is based in a computational theory of mind.
2) That computational procedures are deterministic
3) That domain-general learning is incompatible with EP
My (lay-informed) understanding of EP is that while some researchers with extreme views might believe some of this, it is by no means a widespread view in the field. In particular, the idea that domain-general learning is incompatible with EP seems preposterous. The fact that these statements are all uncited with evidence makes me want to strike the entire set of sentences from the article. Thoughts? Advice? Stevemidgley (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Evolutionary biology articles
- High-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Top-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class philosophy of science articles
- Low-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class neuroscience articles
- Mid-importance neuroscience articles
- Old requests for peer review