This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Memills (talk | contribs) at 04:26, 20 March 2011 (→Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Evolutionary psychology received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Evolutionary biology Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 ('03 – Jun '06) /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more of the same nonsense (see above Talk:Evolutionary psychology#Addition of a warning notice at the top of this page: This is not a controversy or objections page- the reason this is a 'debate page' is that those who have tried to WP:OWN it have failed to provide compelling evidence that their pet subject is defensible as mainstream science. And where exactly are "religious perspectives" evident on this page? Unless you are suggesting that EP is a religion (an interesting idea, but one I'd need to look at further before necessarily agreeing), I've seen no theological, spiritual, or other related arguments here - just good old scientific scepticism, as mirrored in general Misplaced Pages policy - you make a claim, you provide evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@Memills: I have been ignoring this page for a while so I might have missed something, but I have not seen anyone doubt evolution here. The edit warring and nonsensical debates are based on misconceptions of how Misplaced Pages works (it's not a forum, and we don't use silly articles as references, and we don't float topic-related ideas on talk pages). There would be no benefit from putting a warning at the top of this page when WP:NOTFORUM applies to all pages. The correct approach would be an RFC/U or WP:SHUN—don't discuss anything off-topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

As I have stated above it is a misconception that the article should only describe the discipline and its empirical findings. The locking of the page was due to Leadwind's propensity for editwarring by reinserting his preferred edits with out gaining consensus for them first, and reverting others edits for which there were ample consensus. It was not due to questions of whether or not criticism should be presented in the article. There is no way to bypass WP:NPOV - notable criticism of EP goes in the article. Is the criticism notable? Yes, very much so. ALl of the thbree introductions to EP that I have by now laid my hands on include full chapters of rebuttals to the criticism - that means that authors who write introductions to Evolutionary Psychology find the criticism notable enough that they have to include it, and defend the discipline against it. Of course the wikipedia article must also include the criticism then - and of course we cannot include it simply from the EP view but in a balanced treatment that states which arguments are used against EP and which arguments EP use to defend itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A good example of what keeps derailing progress on this page is one of Leadwind's most recent comments: "If, on the other hand, you can ever find any top-notch tertiary source that describes the controversy from a neutral viewpoint and says EP is wrong, let us know, because we could add that into the article." Leadwind consistently presents this discussion as "It is either right or wrong ... you either believe it is right, or believe it is wrong." Leadwind is after truth and thinks anyone who questions him is questioning the truth of EP. But Misplaced Pages is about verifiable views, not truth. Memills might be right that we need a warning, but his ideas of what has gone wrong here are really misplaced. The problem is not a discussion of the controversies surrounding EP. EP is a minority view within the sciences, and it is a mistkae to compare this article (or our aspirations for this article) to the article on Evolution; evolution has long been established as the paradigm for research on biology. EP is very far from establishing itself as the paradigm for research on human behavior or the human mind, and a good article on EP has to explain why. Among other things scientists question its interpretation of Darwin, the testability of its hypotheses, and the habit of evolutionary scientists to ignore or misrepresent the existing research on specific topics. These are important not only because they address core elements of EP but because the manifest core elements of modern scholarly research (I mean, by explaining issues such as these clearly, we are also better-educating readers about science. My basic criteria for inclusion in articles on scientific topics is: what is within the bounds of normal scientific debate, and what is outside the bounds of scientific debate?) These all must be presented in the article and I think the main question right now is how to organize the article so that its controversial status is clear, but in an NPOV way. In short we need to stick to our core principles: NPOV, V< and NOR. We need a warning template for this page that warns people not to use this page to forward unverifiable claims or to violate NOR especially through SYNTH, which has happened a lot here. And most of all we need to warn away anyone who comes here to argue that EP is either "right" or "wrong." That is not what WP articles are about and any attempt to discuss whether it is "right" or "wrong" on this page can only derail constructive discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

SLR, that's a rather long-winded way of saying that you can't find sources comparable to those that favor EP (Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, Psychology textbook, Pinker, Dennett, etc.). Leadwind (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not even close to what I said. Troll as much as you want to, but do not misrepresent what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that if you could just find mainstream sources that agreed with you instead of with me, you wouldn't have to go on at such length to build a case against what the mainstream sources say. Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The only time I ever provided sources, I provided mainstream sources. But where have I gone on at great length to build a case against what any source says? I have never argued "against" a mainstream source, I have only insisted that multiple points of view be represented? Do you really see no difference between being a POV-warriro and trying to comply with NPOV? You write "that agreed with you instead of with me" and you prove my popint: you are trying to use WP as a chat-room, as a forum. None of this is about me versus you. You think editing Misplaced Pages is a competitive sport, and you bring the whole project down. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think you grossly misunderstand what is and is not a credible way of representing both sides of a scientific debate. Are there more mainstream articles and books detailing the supposedly enlightening discoveries of EP, compared to those that critique the field? Yes, absolutely. But those findings do not in any way reflect the general attitudes within the larger field of psychology. As others have stated, EP is a small sub-field. Most psychologists do not subscribe to it, though they might not outwardly critique it either - maybe they are busy doing their own research. I do not know what other mainstream sources of critique you are looking for... you can easily find 50-100 peer reviewed journal articles that critique some aspect of EP and by now there are at least 8-15 whole books that do the same. No one here is looking to argue the 'truth' (whatever that means), but rather to accurately present the various sides in the scientific debate. Logic prevails (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a debate page, or an "objections to," page. It is primarily a page to describe evolutionary approaches to study and to better understand psychological phenomena.

Research that includes evolutionary, adaptationist perspectives appear with increasing regularity in the major, mainstream psychological science journals. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, and many hundreds of books, that examine psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective. A scholar.google.com search using the keywords "evolution" and "psychology" returns more than half a million hits; using the search terms "psychology" and "adaptationist" turns up more than 5,000 hits. A search of books at Amazon.com using the terms "evolutionary psychology" returns 1015 hits, more than does a search for "evolutionary anthropology" with 739 hits.

Evolutionary biology was met with many similar criticisms to those against EP, which continue to this day, and that is why the evolution, and related pages, on WP have a Notice to Editors at the top of their Talk pages. Memills (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All of which is of no relevance whatever when the discussion on this talk page concerns itself, as it does, with whether Evolutionary Psychology is being accurately represented in the article, with its controversial status within the sciences duly noted, and without the far-reaching and largely unsourced claims about its significance giving a false impression of its significance. Furthermore, it needs to be stressed that the article isn't about 'psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective', but about EP specifically - its methodology, its findings, and the validity of such findings. This attempt to misrepresent critics of EP as critics of evolutionary theory is less than conducive to civil discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology is indeed the broad, interdisciplinary study of 'psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective.' Evolutionary biology focuses on the body, evolutionary psychology focuses on the mind/brain. Workman and Reader's textbook, Evolutionary Psychology, begins with: "The fundamental assumption of evolutionary psychology is that the human mind is the product of evolution just like any other body organ, and that we can gain a better understanding of the mind by examining the evolutionary pressures that shaped it." (p. 1) And, as noted by the researchers in the discipline itself:

* The Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES) defines itself as "a society for all those studying the evolution of human behavior. Scientific perspectives range from evolutionary psychology to evolutionary anthropology and cultural evolution; and the membership includes researchers from a range of disciplines in the social and biological sciences."

* The European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association (EHBEA) has a similarly broad self-definition: "an interdisciplinary society that supports the activities of European researchers with an interest in evolutionary accounts of human cognition, behaviour and society."

* The NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society is a "society is designed to facilitate interactions among scholars who study psychological questions from an evolutionary perspective. Given this relatively broad charge, we welcome scholars from multiple disciplines (e.g., anthropology, biology, literary studies, psychology, sociology) with a diversity of research and theoretical interests."

* The premier, highly cited journal in the field, Evolution and Human Behavior defines itself as "an interdisciplinary journal, presenting research reports and theory in which evolutionary perspectives are brought to bear on the study of human behavior, cognition, and culture."

* The journal Evolutionary Psychology is "concerned with evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior."

It is inappropriate attempt to impose your own definition on the discipline. Whatever your definition may be, it is clearly at odds with the definition of researchers in the field, as indicated by their scientific societies and their journals. Memills (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"It is inappropriate attempt to impose your own definition on the discipline". It would be, if I was - instead I am taking the definition that the article itself gives, which isn't a description of a "broad, interdisciplinary study", but instead a very narrow definition based on core principles that few outside the EP core seem to accept - most notably in reference to the 'modularity of mind' issue where "Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms...". If the article looked at the broader field, rather than at core EP, it would be much more credible, in my view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

MEM, I am not sure what you are saying here... are you suggesting that these broad INTERDICIPLINARY organizations are synonymous with EP? Logic prevails (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that those in the discipline, regardless of their own personal preferences for particular sub-theories, would define evolutionary psychology as broadly as do the definitions above -- any investigation that uses an evolutionary / adaptationist approach to understand human emotion, motivation, cognition, and their distal effects on behavior and culture. That is a very big tent. I am open to revisions that more broadly define the discipline.

Having said that, though, the statement "Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms..." would be accepted by most all evolutionists, as they would agree with a similar definition of evolutionary biology as applied to the human body: "The human body consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms..." EPers would agree that the body is not composed of general purpose silly putty, nor is the mind. Even so-called "general purpose" processors must have some structure and decision rules, otherwise they would operate randomly (or, more accurately, not at all). Although there is disagreement in the discipline over the degree of specialization vs. generality of some psychological adaptations, that is really not a huge point of contention in the field. The main points of interest of those in the field are identifying psychological adaptations. And whether they are generally facultative or obligate, what information triggers their activation, their decision rules, their interaction with other psychological adaptations, and their emotional, motivational or cognitive outputs. Memills (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So, "those in the discipline" do not really follow the core tenants outlined by EP theorists (e.g. Buss, Cosmides & Tooby), but would rather agree with the more general evolutionary perspectives offered by the convergence of approaches including anthropology, sociology, etc? I do not think EPers state their theory like that at all.

As for the statement "'Human psychology consists of a large number of functionally specialized evolved mechanisms...' is accepted by most all evolutionists" is clearly false. I have been citing work by psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, neurobiologists, etc. that do not define the mind in that way - You cannot pretend that they do not exist. Even if you wanted to prove your statement more generally, you would first need to survey the population as to their general evolutionary beliefs, then read some EP definitions of the mind and then ask them: "would you agree or disagree that evolution works THIS way." As to your statement: "General purpose processors must have some structure and decision rules, otherwise they would operate randomly (or, more accurately, not at all)..." Yes, I would agree, but only if you assumed that the mind's function involved "processing information" by way of domain-specific decision rules. This is why in this article, we need to be clear what EPers state in their model of the mind. Logic prevails (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, evolutionary psychology is a very big tent. And, like most scientific disciplines, there are a variety of specific interests, pet theories, and disagreements among the investigators. D.S. Wilson promotes group selection, which the majority of the field rejects. Tooby and Cosmides promote the idea of many very specialized psychological adaptations, while others in the field suggest that the modules are fewer in number and are more flexible (evo-devo), some interpret findings from a computational theory of mind (which apparently you disagree with) while others care little about how adaptations are instantiated in the brain. All of these investigators meet up at conferences, call themselves evolutionary psychologists (or, a specific sub-field related to their interests, e.g., evolutionary neuropsychologists, evolutionary economists, evolutionary anthropologists, etc.), and they pretty much manage to get along without resorting to fisticuffs. Basically, they view other evolutionists / adaptationists as colleagues working under the same basic meta-paradigm.

The primary opponents of the field are those who dislike what they see as undesirable potential political implications of evolved psychological adaptations, those who subscribe to a "blank slate" version of the mind, those who believe in entirely content-free, structure free "general purpose processors" (whatever those are), those who believe that culture supersedes and transcends the influence of psychological adaptations, as well as those who have a non-materialist and/or non-evolutionary view of the mind. Memills (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We clearly disagree on who the 'primary opponents are.' It would seem that until we do, this page is prone to 'edit-warring.' I have been providing sources from numerous critics who fall outside of the narrow categories you would like to put them in. They are NOT opposing EP on grounds of the theoretical implications, their wanting a culturally determined or 'blank-slate' definition of the mind, or their defending non-materialist ideas. I would advise you to read about your critics, so at least you can know what they are saying. Regardless, it would seem to me that when we mention them here, they must be represented accurately. Logic prevails (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Do edify, but do so on primarily on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page where such debates are more appropriately fleshed out and thoroughly discussed. Memills (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to outside reviewers responding to this RfC: The commentators so far in this RfC section (including myself, but with the exception of Johnuniq), have been active recent participants in the edit wars that prompted the full protection mode of this page, and this RfC. Memills (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A further note to outside reviewers - Memills remark above is at least questionable. I for instance have only edited the article five times in its history. I assume this revert for example is uncontroversial: diff. Of the remaining four edits, I can see only one which could be remotely seen as 'edit warring' - I fail to see how this constitutes me being one of the supposed "active recent participants in the edit wars", and I expect Memills to redact that statement, or provide evidence to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me, Memills? Can you provide actual edit-difs from the article history that support your claim? What exactly did I do that prompted page protection? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. It was the WP Administrator who put the page under full protection mode who made the characterization of a "Long-running edit war." You would need to ask the WP Administrator exactly what comments, from whom, prompted his/her opinion that there was an edit war. However, let me revise my comment: The commentators so far... have been active recent participants in "the spirited discussions" on the Talk Page. Memills (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the irony? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

improvements to the article?

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

I will be adding back in a section on Cultural Evolution / Memetics / Dual Inheritance Theory (Gene-Culture Coevolution). These topics are covered in Workman and Reader's "Evolutionary Psychology" textbook (chapter 13), as well as Buss' textbook "Evolutionary Psychology" (also chapter 13). Memills (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see that, and trust that you can add high-quality material to the page. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

How about we agree to include the material from Maunus's textbook. It covers the relationship between EP and Darwin, and we can hardly find a better source that a psych textbook. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See my comment re this in the next section below. Memills (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

treatment of ev psych

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

Over the past 15 years, evolutionary psychology has grown from being viewed as a fringe theoretical perspective to occupying a central place within psychological science. Courses in evolutionary psychology are being offered at many colleges and universities throughout the United States and, indeed, in countries throughout the world. Evo- lutionary psychology is now covered in all introductory psychology textbooks, albeit with varying degrees of ac- curacy. One quantitative study of the coverage of evolu- tionary psychology in these texts came to three conclu- sions: (a) Coverage of evolutionary psychology has increased dramatically; (b) the “tone” of coverage has changed over the years from initially hostile to at least neutral (and in some instances balanced); and (c) there remain misunderstandings and mischaracterizations in each of the texts (Cornwell et al., 2005; Park, 2007).

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

As noted above, intro psych textbooks are not always the best places to find accurate info about EP -- the authors sometimes have meager background in EP (psych is an extremely broad discipline). The best places to find more accurate and updated info are undergraduate evolutionary psychology (not intro psychology) textbooks. These include the textbooks by Buss (his new 4th Ed is available now), as well as Gaulin & McBurney, and Workman & Reader. All have the same title: Evolutionary Psychology. I highly encourage editors who wish to contribute to this page to get a copy of at least one of these. Memills (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

However, Psych textbooks can be a very good way to see how EP is viewed within as you say a broad fild. I think leadwind's suggestion is good, as long as the source is not used as if it were a neutral view of EP, and instead were used as a way to see how psychology, the broad discipline, in gneeral, views EP. That is, identify it ias the view that it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Confer et al article was co-written by Buss and is EXTREMELY biased. I have read it thoroughly and have used it as a critical talking point in one of my classes. I would prefer we not look there for an accurate summary of the field or its critics. Logic prevails (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply because the article doesn't conform to your particular biases does not mean that the article is biased. The authors present empirical support for many of the claims in the article. Again, this page needs to accurately represent what EPers say about EP (not what critics of EP say EPers say). Confer, et al., is an excellent article about what EPers actually do, and do not, say. Memills (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Logic prevails that the Confer et al article is biased in favor of EP. I also agree with Memills that this makes it an excellent source of the EP viewpoint. We can definitely use it to describe what EP says. We can't use it todescribe what their critics say - but we can use it to describe how they respond.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Manus, I would agree with that. Logic prevails (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

What's my evidence? We'll for starters, it was written by EPers. It will naturally have an EP bias. I don't need to find a reliable source to say that it is biased. By that same logic, you should find a reliable source to say that it is not. My only point is that we should not view this source as a neutral place to accurately portray the critics. Logic prevails (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have any actual evidence that the paper is biased, then it's hard to exclude the possibility that the paper is neutral and the bias you're registering is located somewhere else. Leadwind (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is biased it is written by Buss and is graduate students. It is structured as a rebuttal. By definition it is biased.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

merge two lists of principles

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

Rather than try to merge the two (it might be a tad awkward?), perhaps select one to keep, and indicate that this definition is similar to the one by... (and include a link or ref to it). Memills (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How about I attempt a merger and we see whether it's awkward? If it's awkward, then I'll abandon the merger, as you suggest. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kleinbo and laland_a

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

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

Language and communication

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

Thanks for reworking this section -- much improved.

Minor quibble with you -- I believe Hauser would indeed self-identify as an evolutionary psychologist. Hauser takes a distinctly evolutionary approach to cognition, and more recently to morality, and he attends many of the EP conferences. Lots of folks not specifically in psychology per se make such a self-identification, including some biologists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, neuroscientists, and economists (the economist Herbert Gintis comes to mind).

EP is best characterized as the broad interdisciplinary study of psychological / cultural phenomena approached from an evolutionary / adaptationist framework. Memills (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if a source describes him as such I would not be adverse to calling him that, but right now I am not even mentioning him in the section. Since the argument of the Hauser, Fitch, Chomsky paper is quite specifically about the ability to produce recursivity as a basis for human language and not really about evolutionary psychology.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

But Tomasello and Givón approach cultural phenomena from an evolutionary framework, yet are decidedly not Evolutionary Psychologists - so that broad definition does not hold. It is a specific kind of evolutionary approach.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm happy with the material that you added, but if we're going to delete information already there, let's agree on why. Also, the material you added implies that the majority of researchers think that the human brain has no special capacity for acquiring language, even among children. That seems like a stretch, given the evidence for a genetic proclivity to pick up language. Is that actually what the source says? Leadwind (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to remove the material again. It is wrong - that is reason enough. You are also misreading the text I have written it does not say that a majority of scholars say that humans have no innate capacity for acquiring language - it says that the Ep explanation is not the majority viewpoint - I don't think there is a majority viewpoint at this stage, there are several competing theories. All of those theories agree that they humans have an innate capacity for learning language - saying otherwise would require denying reality. What the text I have written actually says is that a majority agrees that it is not necessary to believe that it has a specialized innate module of language acquisition, and that it is not necessary to believe that most of grammar is innate as Chomnsky and Pinker does. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the majority opinion: "It is therefore clear that all normal humans bring into the world an innate faculty for language acquisition, language use, and grammar construction." "Language" on EBO. Leadwind (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made it more clear that all language specialists believe that humans are innately disposed to acquire language and that the question is whether this requires a specialised language module or not.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we also have to be careful about lumping together "language acquisition, language use, and grammar construction." I look to Maunus for expertise on this, but while I think all anthropologists believe humans evolved an innate capacity for all these things, the big question for evolutionary theorists is, what were the selective forces acting on the elements required for language construction and language use. What does an "innate capacity" for grammar? I think a belief in this goes back to Kant, and I was taught it was central to Chomsky. But Tomasello and Deacons seem to believe something quite different from Chomsky. Either "innate capacity for grammar construction" is such a vague phrase that people can interpret it to mean very different things (modulear or non modular?) or what? All languages have grammars, so obviously we all have a capacity for it ... I think we have to be really clear about what are the key questions EP and evolutionary scientists are asking ...Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One would have to deny reality in order to argue that humans don't "have an innate capacity to learn grammar". The question is whether this means that most of grammar is innate or whether we just have a general capacity of learning to use complex symbolic systems through experience and exposure alone. EP definitely adopts Chomsky's model suggesting that most of grammar is universal and innate - this has been continuously challenged by contradictory empirical findings.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to be careful with the wording, as there are very important disagreements. Generally speaking, EPers would believe that language is 'module-like' in structure and that it evolved because language solved particular problems in our evolutionary history. However, others believe that language instead emerges from environmental input interacting with neurobiological components that may exist for other evolutionary reasons and are not unique to language alone. It is suggested that certain components (e.g. Striatocapsular area, associational areas of the dorsal and ventral streams, Brocas & Wernickies area, etc.), with help from the environment (e.g. formation of functional Hebbian synapses; neuronal pruning within critical periods), produce the phenotype of language. Logic prevails (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Culture and evolution

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

The terms "evolutionary psychologists" and "evolutionary psychology" should not be capitalized. Apparently you have a copy of the Workman & Reader EP textbook. Their chapter on culture is an excellent overview on evolutionary approaches to the topic. Memills (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a fine chapter. I am a little surprised that not much of the research they describe actually originates in EP and I am thinking about how to angle it to describe the particularly EP view of those studies. It also does misrepresent a few things in the opposing camp (e.g. they talk as if Kroeber's notion of the superorganic ever had any traction - it was rejected as unsound by both Boas and Sapir as soon as it was published). I shall try to stop capitalizing evolutionary psychology - if I forget please correct me. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Pscyh textbook

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

"Evolutionary psychology explains mind and behavior in terms of the adaptive value of abilities that are preserved over time by natural selection. Evolutionary psychology has its roots in Charles Darwin’s (1809–82) theory of natural selection, which inspired William James’s functionalist approach. But it is only since the publication in 1975 of Sociobiology, by the biologist E. O. Wilson, that evolutionary thinking has had an identifiable presence in psychology. That presence is steadily increasing (Buss, 1999; Pinker, 1997a; Tooby & Cosmides, 2000)." (p. 26)

"Critics of the evolutionary approach point out that many current traits of people and other animals probably evolved to serve different functions than those they currently serve. ... Complications like these have lead the critics to wonder how evolutionary hypotheses can ever be tested (Coyne, 2000; Sterelny & Griffiths, 1999). Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a challenging task, but not an impossible one (Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Pinker, 1997b). Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations." (p. 26-27)

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

Sounds good, but this one point has been brought up before... should we trust EPers to say whether their approach is NOT impossible to test? That is, by presenting it this way, you automatically dismiss those critics who assert that it IS impossible. I would prefer an addition that clearly states who is saying it is not impossible (i.e. EPers). Logic prevails (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes no sense to make any blanket statements. Some EP hypotheses can be falsified (we know be cause they have been as Confer et al point out), but that doesn't mean that all EP hypotheses can, or that there aren't more general problems about the general adaptational reasoning. The quote from schacter et al makes a general statement that it is difficult to tests ideas about evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena - but quote Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske and Wakefiled and Pinker as arguing it is not impossible. In anycase it is not the case that the general question of EP as a scientific endeavor has vanished - as I have shown several books published form academic presses last year expressed these same reservations.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, this objection it among the weakest of the critics -- almost makes them look a bit silly. As noted earlier, the same criticism is *still* directed at general evolutionary theory (as noted on the WP Evolution FAQ). Empirical tests of EP hypotheses are being published all the time -- there is a great body of literature already extant. The main issue is this: can an EP approach generate hypotheses that more parsimoniously explain the empirical data than do alternative non-evolutionary hypotheses? In many cases, evidence is accumulating that it apparently can (although I'm sure some critics would dispute that as well). Memills (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Has EP found a way to substantiate their modular claims of genetically informed information processing mechanisms on a biological/genetic level? No? In fact it actually contradicts some of it? Which approach is being silly here? As for the 'empirical testing,' we all know very well that interpretation will be biased according to the assumptions within the paradigm... there is nothing silly about questioning some of the assumptions of EP. But I digress. Logic prevails (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

imo this criticism is very well founded, but probably only concerns a certain segment of Evol Psych - the part that simply churns out speculative just-so stories like "language evolved to allow people to make social contracts", "jeaolusy evolved to make men keep control of their off spring", "women live longer because longlived grandmothers served an evolutionary function by doing child care" etc. This stuff exists and it makes EP look silly. But I think there are also more serious kinds of evo psych. As Fitch says "there are strands of EVolutionary Psychology that are suggestive of pan-adaptionism"·Maunus·ƛ· 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

expand mating section

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

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

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

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

Logic and I agree we need more on this topic. Anyone want to pick this up? Leadwind (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

changing cited text

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

The recent edit you reverted was appropriate. Although the source uses the word "impressive" in relation to the research, matters of opinion should not be reproduced as WP content without attribution. --FormerIP (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"matters of opinion should not be reproduced as WP content without attribution." Really? Where's the policy that says that? To me, this sounds like the anti-Catholic editors who refuse to let the Catholic Church page say that the CC has been a decisive force in Western civilization, even though neutral accounts say that it certainly has been. If neutral Encyclopedia Britannica can say that EP findings are "impressive" and that the Catholic Church has been a decisive force in Western civilization, what policy keeps us from saying the same thing? Leadwind (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind read WP:PEACOCK. "impressive" is not a word that can beused without it being used to express someone's subjective judgment. Things are not impressive, they are impressive to someone. Furthermore you are quoting the text out of context it acytually says "Similarly, the relatively new discipline of evolutionary psychology can easily go too far in extending evolutionary principles to human behaviour. Extant behavioral traits in humans were not shaped by the current environment. Rather, the environmental context in which humans evolved was probably quite different from that of the modern world. People in ancestral societies lived in smaller groups, had more-cohesive cultures, and had more stable and rich contexts for identity and meaning. As a result, it is important to be cautious when using present circumstances to discern the selective bases of human behaviour. Despite this difficulty, there have been many careful and informative studies of human social behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. Infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, altruism, and the allocation of parental care have all been explored by testing predictions derived from the idea that conscious and unconscious behaviours have evolved to maximize inclusive fitness. The findings have been impressive. As with other species, however, it is important to critically evaluate and avoid overextending the evidence." The authors Dickinson and Koenig are expressing their evaluation of some studies. There is no automaticity with which we simply include statements of opinion in the article lead. It requires that we have a consensus that this particular wording is sufficiently representative and notable to be included. In this case three editors say it isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Controversy in Lead?

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

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

I think its a very good idea.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Critics may like the idea. However, the "Overview" section is a brief abstract of the discipline. The same rationale for keeping the focus of this page on EP, not a running point-counterpoint debate with critics, applies as well to the Overview. The Overview sections of other controversial disciplines, including the Evolution page, have no such link(s). There is already a Controversies section on the main EP page, with a link to the EP Controversy page -- quite sufficient for an encyclopedic entry.Memills (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

MEMills, even Reader and Workman's Introduction spend substantial time describing opposing view and how Ep relates to critics. To give an adequate and neutral description of the topic the article needs to do this as well. It is not neutral to only describe one view on the topic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Within the scientific community, there is little debate (relevant to a general audience) about the fundamental axioms of evolutionary theory. In sharp contrast, there is ongoing intense debate about evolutionary psychology. A more apt analogy is to race and gender. It might be that biology has something to contribute to most discussions of race and gender, or not. The level of analysis matters, and some levels (e.g. socializing and enculturation) can largely disregard biological details as irrelevant. That's not to say biological differences don't exist at all, just that they don't productively inform many frameworks or other levels of understanding. Is race best understood as a biological or a social phenomenon? It depends on what questions you want to answer. Many people think the latter, and have honest reasons to prefer a cultural level of analysis for race and gender. Likewise, human minds can be understood on multiple levels, and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that evolutionary biology is not relevant to many of these levels. The article makes it quite clear the EP has been proposed as a fundamental paradigm for unifying the study of minds through evolutionary biology. It would be deceptive not to better inform readers that this paradigm is controversial and has substantial scientific and philosophical opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Memills, your wanting to view EP as synonymous with general evolutionary theory is getting tiring. No one here is disagreeing about whether evolution shaped the human nervous system. Stop trying to draw parallels that are not there. An acceptance of general evolutionary theory does not assume acceptance of EP, nor does rejection of EP prevent one from accepting the general tenants of evolution. I will again point out that EP is a particular WAY of applying evolutionary ideas to studying the mind - there are other ways of doing so. It only makes sense to warn the lay reader that there is significant controversy around the field - in both its theoretical assumptions and its methods. Logic prevails (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

MEMills presumably knows what he's talking about when he says defines EP broadly. People who hate EP want to define it narrowly, but if there were an RS that told us to define it narrowly then that would really help. In general, our sources do treat EP as the most general approach to the evolution of human psychology. The Social Behavior article on EBO, for example, names EP as the (only) way to apply evolutionary analysis to human psychology. Same with the Instinct article. If there are competing ways to apply evolution to EP (ways that actually compete, not complement), find an RS that says so. (That's the big weakness you detractors can't get over: your lack of RSs.) EP has moved to the center of social science, so naturally it's broad. Remember, until Sociobiology, there was no presence of evolutionary thought in psychology, and Gould, et al, bitterly hated the introduction of such evolutionary analysis. All of this supposed non-EP treatment of how human psychology evolved must owe its origin to sociobiology and EP. Leadwind (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

EP has not moved to the center of social science. It hardly has a presence in social sciences. It has become more common in psychology. These misconceptions do not become true by repetition.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jj1236, welcome to the page! It's my habit to ask the detractors of EP for two things: RSs and policies. (For one reason or another, I usually have to ask over and over.) So let's get started. You say "In sharp contrast, there is ongoing intense debate about evolutionary psychology." Really? Find an RS that says so. Maunus's textbook doesn't. It says that, despite the criticisms, the one notable criticism of EP ("not testable") is false. There are lots of people who hate EP, but that's different from an actual debate. That said, yes, I want to cover the controversy. As a neutral editor, I catch heat from both sides, the people who say we can't say anything good about EP, and the people who say we can't say anything bad about it. (It's lonely in the middle.) Currently the article doesn't say anything about how evil, racist, and sexist EP (reportedly) is, and I'd like to fix that. But first, how about a source for your claim that there's an ongoing debate? Leadwind (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does, the textbook Evolutionary Psychology Introduction also spends a substantial part describing the controversy. I think it is about time you stop misrepresenting sources. You are getting so tiresome to listen to, like a broken record. Several EP critical books were published last year from respectable presses, entire articles in peerreviewed journals by EP'ers are dedicated to answering arguments from their critics. You cannot turn that into "no debate". Please just stop pushing that science fiction story where everybody has accepted that EP is the new paradigm. You are wasting our time Leadwind. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, I think, is an important distinction that many are missing.

The "debate" often really has to do more with differences between researchers in interests and emphasis, rather than disagreement about whether the brain evolved, and whether it shows evidence of adaptive function. Most all would agree with the latter. However, some folks are more interested in studying proximate rather than ultimate (evolutionary) level of analysis, and, of course, they believe that what they study is of more importance. Also, as exemplified by the unsigned comment above, some folks are more interested in cultural change independent of evolved psychological adaptations, and how we can change cultures for the better (reduce racism, etc.), and they are less interested in our human nature may produce cultural commonalities ("evoked culture"). I would disagree that there is "intense, ongoing" debate about EP. Rather, there are folks who have different interests, and are approaching the study of human behavior from different cells of Tinbergen's table of questions. Much of what is interpreted as "debate" barely qualifies for such a moniker -- rather it is more akin disciplinary turf wars to "my area of interest is more interesting than yours." Similar interdisciplinary dissing is common between and within many disciplines (e.g., psychiatrists dissing clinical psychologists and vice versa, between cultural and biological anthropologists, between those focused on treatment (say, surgeons) vs. prevention (fitness experts)).

If EP is wrongheaded in its basic assumptions, the critics have little to fear -- over time it's irrelevance will be demonstrated empirically. It is rather disconcerting when critics seem to be saying, "stop doing research on this..." That is always a red flag.

Final comment. Note how the discussion about a really simple question posed at the outset of this section has transformed, yet again, into a general debate. This is not a forum.

I stand on my comment above -- what is proposed here is overkill. It has a histrionic premise: "Oh, my EP is so scary and dangerous, we need to be sure that Mr. Innocent Layperson who reads the Overview is aware that there is a raging controversy about whether it is even a science! Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!" Please. The next proposal, I'm afraid, will be "We must change the title of the Evolutionary Psychology page to include a warning label -- "Evolutionary Psychology (Caution -- that evil, dastardly discipline that has it all wrong!)" Memills (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is false. The premise for including description of the controversy is not "histrionic" it is policy. I don't think any of the persosn you are arguing with here are afraid of EP - that is a strawman that you are attributing to the critics (for some of which it may actually apply, but certainly not all ) and to your fellow editors here (where it is certainly not applicable). The reason to include the debate is the fact that there is a debate and the our policy WP:NPOV requires that all notable viewpoints on a topic be included in the article. It is not a question of whether EP is evil or requires a warning (strawman again) it is a question of including all the notable viewpoints some of which (not a few) happen to be unfavourably disposed towards EP as a discipline. The mere fact that there is a controversy (and there is as the articles by Confer and Suplizion and the books by Buller, Rose, Richardson attest and the fact that even introductions to EP spend substantial space adressing the controversy corroborates) - requires that the controversy be covered in the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Memills, again you misconstrue the critics. First you would like to conceptualize them all as 'cultural determinists' or pushers of the invented 'Standard Social Science Model.' Then you try to say that they have axes to grind, are uncomfortable with the consequences of EP, or are pushing non-materialism. Now you want to say that it is all really about some kind of 'turf war,' common to all fields? The majority of critics are not arguing from any of these perspectives. There are too many peer-reviewed journal articles and academic books on this issue to ignore. There IS an ongoing academic debate - we should not need to argue about that. Logic prevails (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether there is controversy. It is whether a link to the EP Controversy page needs to be included in the Overview. Overview = overkill. Show me another WP page that has such a link.

You can get a sense of how many social scientists really understand EP by asking a simple question: "Do you know what inclusive fitness means?" A stunningly large number will say: "Inclusive what?" In fact, I just had lunch the other day with a colleague, a neuropsychologist, who didn't know what it meant. (Of course, more sophisticated critics do have a more firm grounding in evolutionary theory.)

For those old enough to remember, this "debate" is reminiscent of the behaviorism debate in the 1970s, mostly prompted by B. F. Skinner's book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." That was mostly an academic cultural and turf war -- it had little to do with empirical evidence. It had a lot to do with folks' philosophical positions on human nature. EP similarly has a lot to do with folks' pre-existing ideas about human nature. When some perceive that EP is at odds with their view of human nature, a strong response may ensue -- one that is often more visceral than intellectually nuanced.

The behaviorism debate subsided. Learning theory is no longer controversial -- it was embedded into psychology, but the behaviorist refusal to look into the "black box" (the mind/brain) was replaced by cognitive and neuro- psychology. Overall, the EP debate has been subsiding, but gradually. It is becoming more mainstream, and adaptationist-informed empirical articles appear with increasing frequency in mainstream journals. Memills (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

MEM - I am not sure what point you are making with your testing of persons knowledge of 'inclusive fitness,' thought it is consistent with your preaching that critics read and thoroughly understand the foundational texts of EP. We hear much the same from religious practitioners who consider atheists to be misguided and uninformed - they always counter that the doubters should read and then re-read the holy texts that will show them the 'truth.' However, one does not need to understand the subtle nuances, terminologies, or myths of a theory to reject it. For example, I do not need to intimately read the Qur’an or the Holy Bible, in order to refute the existence of a holy place in the sky. I think the critics position has nothing to do with being at odds with their view of human nature and everything to do with it being at odds with science and logic. Logic prevails (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your strongly negative feelings against EP are, again, getting the better of you, LogicPrevails. The "preaching" comment is close to an ad-hominem. Again, you need to ask yourself, what are your motivations for being here -- to accurately present EP, or to bury it?

I haven't asked anyone of read the "holy scriptures" of Darwin, Hamilton, Williams, Trivers, Dawkins, Symons, Daly & Wilson, or Tooby & Cosmides. I have recommend reading an undergraduate evolutionary psychology textbook so that WP editors can make accurate contributions about what EP does, and does not say, on the main EP page.

As noted by Robert Kurzban at the outset of his recent book "Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite" (by the way, highly recommended): "First and foremost, (EP is) a scientific endeavor, committed to the usual principles of hypothesis generation, falsification, and so on. I mention this here because ill-informed but vocal critics seem to have missed this." The "nonscientific" charge is probably the weakest claim of critics -- almost embarrassingly naive.

Inclusive fitness is the bedrock theory of evolutionary biology and psychology. The fact that so many social scientists, and EP critics, haven't a clue as to what it means betrays a stunning lack of depth of their understanding of the discipline. Memills (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That honestly does sound fairly preachy Memills. In any case it is of no relevance which criticism you, me or Kurzban find to be weak or strong - what matter is that it is there. Also I don't think LogicPrevails has as strong feelings against the discipline as you might think - I think he is reacting to your rhetorics that do suggest very much that you believe that EP is the only way to combine psychology and cognitive science with evolutionary theory. It demonstrably isn't - none of the critics of EP are anti-evolutionists or cultural determinists as you more than imply - they all believe that human mental faculties have evolved adaptively. They just dont buy EP's conclusions regarding what that means for our minds and our behaviors. I agree that a large part of the issue is that many social scientists find proximal explanations a thousand times more relevant than distal ones. But it does not account for all of it - part of the reason is also that many are annoyed by Ep's tendency to think of it self as the only evolutionary theory while not taking other evolutionarily grounded frameworks seriously, and the logical leaps that lead to modularity theories based on flimsy evidence and lastly EP's often flat rejection to incorporate evidence and conclusions from other disciplines. This is all possible to find in sources and it all needs to be explained from both sides.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LogicPrevails himself has here previously stated his negative perspective on EP.

As I have mentioned previously, the characterization of EP as narrow is simply untrue -- it is very broad and highly interdisciplinary. Let us know the evolutionary approaches to behavior that you believe that EP flatly rejects. And, if there are modern evolutionary approaches that are not grounded in Hamiltonian inclusive fitness, do share. Memills (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in basic evolutionary theory that can be used as an argument for a modular theory of mind against for example a connectionist one. And no connectionist would put the evolutionary origin of the human brain intoquestion. An evolutionary approach to the mind that is not based on the modular mind theory is not Evolutionary Psychology, but it can very well be an evolutionary approach to psychology. EP may be broad and interdisciplinary, but it is not all encompassing - and if you now decide to argue that evolutionary psychology does not require the modular mind approach that consitutes watering down the concept of evolutionary psychology to a state where only religious forms of psychology can be said to be outside of it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Connectionism is not, per se, an evolutionary theory of the mind, it is a proximate theory of how modules self-assmble. Connectionists pretty much leave unanswered how the capacity to develop neural nets evolved, what evolved adaptations there are that allow such neural nets to operate. They certainly don't operate randomly.

A modular theory of mind (whether based on proximate ideas re neural nets, or something else is based on the premise that, just as the body could not be made up of general purpose silly putty, neither could the brain. Can you imagine a non-modular body? A body without organs, a "general purpose physiology machine" with a general purpose biochemistry that can handle any physical challenge? I can't. The possibility of a general purpose brain, without multiple modules that interact hierarchically, is equally implausible.

Neurological processing of visual information is perhaps a good example. There are many levels of visual neurological submodules, starting with basic visual scene detectors (edge detectors, motion detectors) to intermediate (alive or dead? human or non-human? a face?), to integrative (a face that I know? yes. oh, it's my grandmother!). I think we can all agree that there is no magical domain general agent that can conclude "It's my grandmother!" without the input from sub-modules. And that even higher order modules must have some structure and operate by certain rules with some regularity given typical gene-environment developmental trajectories (evo-devo).

I think the argument is that connectionists erroneously think that EPers believe that adaptive modules are "hard-wired" into the brain by genetics alone, rather than by the interaction of genetics and environmental input. However, evo-devo suggests that while they are not hard wired, typical gene-environment interaction produce generally similar psychological adaptations among humans. The assembly of the brain during development is not random, it is not without genetically guided developmental structure.

If what some folks label "domain general" is the same thing as what other folks label a higher order "meta-module" then the disagreement is mostly semantic. And, if some folks are interested in studying the operation of "lower level" modules ("how and why is sugar sweet?"), while others are more interested in the "higher level" ones ("how can we recognize the faces of kin, and why is it important that we be able to do so?), no problem. No problem either if some folks are interested in studying proximate causality while others are interested in studying evolutionary causality.

Long story short -- connectionism is not an alternative evolutionary approach to the mind/brain. It is primarily a proximate approach to understanding neural ontogenetic development, and it leaves how such phenomena evolved largely unanswered. Memills (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is this do connectionists believe in evolution? Is connectionism compatible with evolution? Yes, on both accounts. Is it compatible with EP and the modular mind theory? No. It is of course correct that connectionists do not generally take interest in how the brain evolved (although i know of one study that does). But Evolutionary neurobiologists have no problems subscribing to connectionist theories of mind rather than EP. As far as I know neurobiological evidence does not favor the modular mind theory. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

MEM, you are again building strawmen - no one thinks the mind/brain is entirely domain-general 'silly-putty' - Skinner would even refute that claim. Its hard to know where to start with your other claims... this really should not turn into a debate page. You are incorrect to suggest that this is a problem of 'semantics'... again, read what the critics are saying. And unfortunately, not everyone would agree that EP is entirely scientific. The mostly modular view of the human mind favored by EP did not arise from the physical sciences. Noam Chomsky was reported to have said: "EP is a philosophy of mind with a little bit of science thrown in."

You need to be careful in your interpretation of neurobiological evidence. While you are correct in pointing out that there are V1 neurons that respond to varying line orientations and movement (there is hard biological evidence for this), you are incorrect in making the jump to genetically pre-programmed neuronal detectors for 'alive or dead,' 'human or non-human,' and so on. You cannot take evidence arising from primary cortical areas and assume that the rest of the brain works the same. Tertiary, secondary, and associational areas are poorly developed at birth and are more flexibly shaped by environmental forces. This is one of the key criticisms of EP: they are accused of 'cherry-picking' findings from the neurobiological sciences that fit with their theory, while ignoring or misrepresenting the rest. There is NO neurobiological evidence for genetically programmed sociobiological modules that do some of the things EP would like them to do. And yes, I know the interactionist view of EP. They are happy to give brief mention about how culture and environment shape and influence the human mind, but when they do, they quickly attribute the most causal mechanism to some kind of invisible module of adaptive function, such as when Confer et al. go on to talk about 'evoked culture.'

As to my personal views... they will influence my edits only insofar as I want the critics to be briefly mentioned and accurately portrayed. I think it important for the lay reader to be aware that there is a debate, so that they can investigate and decide for themselves what to make of it all. Logic prevails (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Like MEM, I'd like to ask the detractors for the sources on which they base their depiction of EP. EP is the central body of theory and research that connects evolutionary theory to human behavior, and no related body of research contradicts it. Britannica agrees. Before sociobiology and EP, evolutionary thinking had basically no serious presence in psychology. All the evolutionary thought that the detractors think is opposed to EP actually resulted from EP. Thank goodness that sociobiology and EP saved us from the standard social science model. Detractors want to define EP very narrowly, but just try finding a source that defines EP that narrowly. EP? That's where it's at. 14:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your response is not even worth responding to. You are either incorrect or misguided in almost every sentence you wrote. As to the sources used to depict EP... they are the same ones you have been using to describe it in this very article. Logic prevails (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

race

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

Evolutionary psychology concerns itself mostly with human universals, the shared psychology that humans evolved as a species. In contrast, genetic difference is the subject of behavioral genetics. Since humans differentiated into races only within the last fifty thousand years or so, genetic differences among racial groups are minor compared to what humans all have in common. Genetically, humanity is a "small" species, meaning that human genetic variety is so limited that it resembles the amount of variety found in a species with a small number of members.

Even so, just as there are physical differences among races and ethnic groups, there may be innate psychological differences between between one population and another. A hot-button issue in this area is the difference in measured IQ among blacks and whites in the US. In this case, evolutionary psychologists emphasize that differences between populations are primarily the result of culture, while similarities between populations are attributed to a shared evolutionary history. Steven Pinker, for example, finds that the much-discussed black-white IQ gap in the US does not call for a genetic explanation. And as Noam Chomsky points out, even if we did find genetic differences in IQ from one race to another, that would not justify discrimination.

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

Race does not seem to be a recurrent issue in the Ep controversy - EP generally deals in universals rather than between group differences. And in your quote Pinker says that the IQ gap does not need a genetic explanation so he doesn't think its relevant for EP.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think the question of whether a topic should be covered on the EP page, and, if so, how much emphasis it should be given, can be answered pretty easily. Check the index of an undergraduate level evolutionary psychology textbook and see if the topic is covered. If so, check how much space in the textbook is actually devoted to the topic. If there is little or nothing, there is little rationale to include it here.

With respect to race or racism, there is no index entry in the Buss textbook. In the Workman & Reader textbook there is only mention of it with respect to critics of EP.

It might be an appropriate topic for the EP Controversy page, but doesn't deserve much space here. At most, perhaps a mention that EP generally considers racial differences pretty minor against the backdrop of an evolved human nature, or, in the section on Groups, how race might be one indicator of possible in- vs. out-group membership. Memills (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Memills. The only racialist psychologist I know who is working with an evolutionary framework is J. Phillipe Rushton and he is not an evolutionary psychologist but rather works within Sociobiology. Pinker totally downplays the race issue, merely mentioning that it is possible that there are psychological differences that match physiological ones, but that the universal issues are much more important and interesting. 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

That is incorrect. Researchers such as Lynn, Kanazawa, Templer, Jensen, and Arikawa also use evolutionary explanations for race differences.Miradre (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Lewontin's Fallacy, see that article. For a more general discussion, see race and genetics.Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But none of those use evolutionary frameworks of explanation as Rushton does, which is what I was saying - you are confusing different disputes here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is possible but if so I think others may well make the same mistake so an explanation would be appropriate. Why would these researchers, who all argue that the evolutionary pressure on intelligence was higher in certain geographic regions compared to others (those with colder climate, or those with more novel geographic features, or those allowing higher population density), not be using a evolutionary framework? Miradre (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen Jensen, Kanazawa or Lynn use a Darwinian framework to explain the proposed racial IQ gap. Rushton explicitly does so and draws on Sociobiology in doing so. I know Lynn uses Rushton's work as a theoretical base for his own, but I don't remember him spending much time actually developing the proposed evolutionary causality of IQ disparities.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources supporting my statement.Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002 instead.>Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.04.001, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.04.001 instead.

Ok, there seem to be others than Rushton. There are however also Evolutionary Psychologists that reject the idea of race all together such as Francisco Gil-White, who argues that racial and ethnic categories don't reflect reality but that the near universal trend of seeing them as natural categories is itself the result of an adaption. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Then we can present views from both sides.Miradre (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

No, I am not going to do any more of your reading for you. If you want to be a serious player here, you'll have to get your own hands on books and do some actual research that doesn't rely on what ever snippets you can find available online. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Maunus, it's not for me. It's for the reader. Isn't that who we have in mind when we edit, the reader? You and I worked together profitably with your Schacter summary. You summarized and I put the summary on the page. Why can't we keep working together like that? Leadwind (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than supply you with data for you to misunderstand and misrepresent. If you want to play research then the minimal effort is to get to a library. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that's hardly fair. I've added a lot of material to the page from a number of different RSs. If we added it up, I suppose I've added more than you have in the last couple months. And I'm not the only one who'd like to see a summary on the topic from a top-notch source, like yours. Why not share? Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

evolution of language

This material was deleted from the language section.

The development of fully modern behavior in H. sapiens, not shared by H. neanderthalensis or any other variety of Homo, is dated to some 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. The development of more sophisticated tools, for the first time constructed out of more than one material (e.g. bone or antler) and sortable into different categories of function (such as projectile points, engraving tools, knife blades, and drilling and piercing tools) are often taken as proof for the presence of fully developed language, assumed to be necessary for the teaching of the processes of manufacture to offspring.

The FOXP2 gene affects vocalization, and the human version of the gene is unique. This version evidently appeared between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago, and it may have been critical for the development of human speech, society and cognition.

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

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

Agreed. Logic prevails (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

That certainly depends on how you propose to add it. Also I own the 2004 edition of that textbook, so I sure hope I won't be surprised. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about you read Workman & Reader and summarize what it says about FOXP2? Then you won't have to worry about me messing it up. Leadwind (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent rephrasing of my summary of workman and reader misrepresents the statement of the source. The statement clearly is that the modular theory is only one of several theories none of which has conclusive support. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• (Work,am & Reader's (2004) sole mention of FOXP2)"Certain forms of SLI appear to be genetic in that they run in families (as is

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

inclusive fitness

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

I've restored the section again. Bear with me -- interactions with kin is a major topic in EP, and deserves it own section. I'll edit this section to reduce redundancy with info presented earlier, as well as add specifically EP info and refs. (In fact, all of these subsections need editing to add more specifically EP info and refs.) Memills (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll bear with you. In good writing, what isn't included is as important as what is, and the general idea of inclusive fitness is already covered in text and in the big table, so we really can't cover the general idea a third time. Specific findings that are explicated by inclusive fitness, that's what this section needs. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Memills (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

centrality of evolutionary theory in social science

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

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

What exactly are you suggesting that Francis Fukuyama is an expert on, and why do reliable sources consider him relevant to EP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Francis Fukuyama is not an evolutionary psychologist, or indeed any kind of psychologist. He may be an expert, but not on this topic. The NYT is a reliable source for somethings, not for all, and we do not include something because it is written in a reliable source, but because it adds valuable information to the article, and contributes to develop a fuller understanding of the topic for the reader. What would including this particular bit of information contribute to the goal of describing EP?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In any event, anthropologists have long argued that H. sapiens evolved to be highly social. The more data we have on primates in the wild and of a fossil record, the more sophisticated he modles. Nancy Tanner is one good example. Terrence Deacon is another, maybe the most sophisticated. But I doubt you can find any intro to anthropology textbook, at least since the post-war period, that does not say something about humans evolving a disposition towards sociality. There is evidence against favoring relatives, however, and I know of no one who has put together an argument for favoring relatives with actual evidence. I bring this up just as another examplke of a point many have made, that one of the major problems with EP is that it ignores the solid research that non-psychologists have done on these questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

EP claims to be able to serve as a central way of understanding human behavior, informing the social sciences and integrating them with biology. Fukuyama is a highly notable scholar who demonstrates that one can use the new concept of a universal, evolved human nature to inform a monumental reassessment of the development of civilizations. Before sociobiology, evolutionary thought had basically no real place in the social sciences (per Schacter), which is why the social scientists attacked sociobiology so fiercely. Now evolutionary thought has a central place in re-evaluating human history. When a highly notable scholar releases what appears to be a magnum opus based on a style of analysis that was forbidden just 15 or 25 years ago, well, that's relevant to this topic, I think. YMMV. Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Before sociobiology, evolutionary thought had basically no real place in the social sciences". Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be mean. Just show us a textbook that says that evolutionary thought had an important role in the social sciences before 1975. Maunus's textbook says that it was only with Wilson's Sociobiology that evolutionary analysis entered psychology, and we all know how well the social scientists embraced sociobiology when it first appeared. Maybe you're not old enough to remember the fierce opposition to the idea that even basic behaviors such as mating strategies might take their features from natural selection. Anyway, Fukuyama's evolution-oriented analysis is explicitly at odds with the traditional anthropological approach, which features thick description rather than a search for human universals. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not relevant for this article.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"he traditional anthropological approach... features thick description rather than a search for human universals.". Really? Tell that to Claude Lévi-Strauss. If structuralism isn't about 'human universals' I've no idea what is....

In any case, if you want to cite Fukuyama as being relevant to the social sciences, you need to find sources from within those same sciences that say so, not just some random hype from the NYT. (and BTW, I'm in my mid 50s, so am "old enough to remember" lots of things - don't make assumptions without evidence) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind, you need to be careful about what you take from textbooks; especially single sources, as they can be incorrect. Both Freud and even Skinner put their theories in the context of evolution. They were very familiar with Darwinian concepts - including the notion of natural selection. This was no doubt an important finding, but the founders of psychology did not make a panacea of it - that is, they viewed 'adaptation' more generally; they did not try to explain nearly every mental process as discrete and invisible genetic adaptations. You make it sound as though modern psychology completely ignored evolution up until Sociobiology and EP. This is grossly incorrect. Logic prevails (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Marvin Harris's introductory textbook on anthropology Culture, People, Nature integrates evolutionary theory. So does Alex Alland's To Be Human. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that people evolved or even that we have instincts that we evolved. Freud said that. But the breakthrough of sociobiology was to explain behaviors as adaptations, to explain how natural selection would have shaped them. Freud's death instinct wasn't any kind of adaptation. Thanks to sociobiology, psychologists can no longer talk about "instincts" that didn't improve inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment. Skinner attributed human behavior not to psychological adaptations but to conditioning. Harris's and Alland's books seem to both post-date sociobiology. If they actually analyze human behaviors as adaptations, that's thanks to E O Wilson. Sociobiology stirred up a firestorm of controversy because it actually applied real evolutionary analysis to human behavior for the first time. Now maybe I'm wrong. (It's happened before!) so what I'm asking for is an RS that says I'm wrong, not a couple of EP-hating editor that say I'm wrong. Leadwind (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My views about EP have nothing to do with the above statements, though perhaps yours do. It does not matter whether YOU consider EP to be the best thing since the invention of lightbulb - the views of editors do not matter. I was challenging the accuracy of your statement that evolutionary thinking was not a part of psychology until Sociobiology. Have you ever read Freud, or do you only know him by what you may have read online or in an introductory textbook? Big difference. He did think in terms of evolution. Likewise, Skinner considered both classical and operant conditioning principles to have been acquired through our evolutionary heritage. Again, it does not matter what you think of these approaches and whether or not YOU think they represent ways of 'incorrectly applying' evolutionary principles or whatever. Likewise, it is not for you to say what is a 'real application of evolution,' as your opinion does not matter, and the opinion of scholars is divided. The point to be made is that evolution was a part of psychological thinking before Sociobiology. You cannot debate that. Logic prevails (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is not about sociobiology, it is about EP, the interview with Francis Fukuyama does not even mention EP and so per policy there is no way to justify its inclusion. Also Logic and leadwind - get a chat room, if you want to discuss the degree to which Skinner and Freud used evolution. Its irrelevant for this article.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

overview section must go

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

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

agreed.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

recent work on EEA

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

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

Majority revisited

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

Have you found an RS that says EP hypotheses can't be tested? Leadwind (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, my wife of 16 years died about three years ago, and I never beat her. I answered your question. Can you answer mine? What's your best RS that says EP hypotheses can't be tested? Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Research Methods bunk

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

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

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

I tend to agree. There really is no reason to give an overview of evolutionary theory here. We can do that with a simple wikilink.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

EP textbooks provide overviews of evolutionary theory, so we should, too. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

EP textbooks are neither encyclopedias or wikis. We are both.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate level EP textbooks are excellent sources to find info about what EP does, and does not, say. If only more of the editors of this page actually took the time to refer to them. Memills (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an unnecessary comment. The question is that since this is an encyclopedia and a wiki we have 1. a requirement to stay on topic. An article is about a single topic we do not want to provide a broad context of the topic as a paper textbook does. and 2. since we are a wiki we can simply link to the relevant articles instead of duplicating general content about evolutionary theory here. I will take steps to drastically shorten the section on evolutionary theory - this is a simplke requirement according to our article guidelines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Parts that need fixing from the criticism section:

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

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

What about this sentence:

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

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

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

I have rewritten the criticism section based on the rather excellent historical overview of evolutionary approaches to psychology in Plotkin 2004 (he is definitely positively disposed to EP, but summarises some of the ciriticism in a reasonably fair way). I also stated in the definition that there is a narrow and a broad sense of Evolutionary Psychology - this has been acknowledged by Memills above, but is also explicitly stated in Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative Approaches by Scher and Rauscher.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, thanks for actually using good sources. That's a real step forward. You've finally found a book that says what you like, so bully for you! Do you think you would be able to go back into your text and get rid of all those capital letters. It's not a religion, so it's not Evolutionary Psychology. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to you I have been using actually academically published sources (some of them even printed on paper!) all along.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, LogicPrevails above reveals such a deep misunderstanding of EP, no wonder he is in a tiff. The nature-vs-nurture debate is over. There are no EP genetic determinists. He conflates proximate vs. ultimte -- EP is not about genes, is it about adaptations. All in a couple of brief paragraphs. Like most of the critics, he is attacking EP for things EP doesn't say. Robert Kuzban's new book "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite" notes how common this is among critics: "evolutionary psychology is oddly subject to this type of scholarly malpractice. Martin Daly and _Margo Wilson catalog various cases in which "scholars" have not only mis-cited them, but hung views on them that are the exact opposite of their position." Memills (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurzban is himself 100% guilty of misrepresenting his critics, and Pinker for example is renowned for hanging strawmen up on his opponents only to shoot them down with bucksot at point blank range. As Plotkin clearly states this shrill behavior has characterized "scholars" on both sides. It only makes the matter worse when people like Kurzban point out the splinter in his brothers eye while he himself has the trunk of a sequoyah sticking out of his own.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Broad or narrow

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

Again, we need to present what EPers say EP is, not what others say EP is, or isn't. As I noted above, all the EP societies and journals specifically indicate that they adopt a very, very broad perspective re this (see my previous comment and documentation re this above). They don't say, "we publish articles only in the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides perspectives." And, if you browse around in the EP literature, you will find a great deal of diversity in approaches. The term "evolutionary psychology" is as broad as the term "evolutionary biology." If you want to specifically critique the Tooby/Cosmides approach to EP, that would be a fine topic on the EP Controversy page, or, perhaps on their individual WP pages. Memills (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You fail to understand that Scher and Rauscher (and Logic prevails) are EP'ers under the broad definition of EP, but yet they do clearly not identify as sharing basic approaches with the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides/Pinker umbrella, and they are explicitly stating that their school represent a narrow paradigm of evolutionary psychology with which they do not identitfy. You cannot forcibly include them under the label EP and then afterwards deprive them of the right to participate in defining the field. Also of course the journals adopt a broad perspective, but that doesn't mean that the evolutionary psychology as a concept is not also used in a narrower sense about the specific paradigm started in the 1990'es. There is a wide range of literature that identifies Ep specifically with the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides approach you cannot escape this by referring to how scientific journals define the field. It is also strange to me that you do not recognize that it is your and the readers interest to distinguish between the narrow and the broad sense because a lot of the criticism is specifically aimed ONLY at the narrow sense (e.g. the modular mind criticism). You seem to want to adopt both a broad definition of EP and at the same time make it look as if it is a coherent and welldefined discipline where everybody agrees about the basic tenets. That amounts to trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either we adopt the broad definition in which case we have to explicitly show that there is no universally accepted tenets and we have to describe the way in which different evolutionary approaches are being advocated and applied by different researchers - OR we adopt the narrow definition of Buss/Tooby/Cosmides/Pinker which is the only sense in which EP can be described as a unified discipline with a welldefined shared set of theoretical assumptions.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

When a reader clicks on a wikilink that says "evolutionary psychology" (esp. the wikilink in the Psychology infobox), they expect to go to the broadest, top-level treatment of EP. We can treat the narrow version here as a section of this page. Maybe it even deserves a page of its own, but this is the broad, top-level page. Leadwind (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

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

I welcome broader community involvement. I have requested both Peer Review and a Request for Comment of this article. Unfortunately, we received no comments from neutral parties not already involved in the 'edit wars.' And, this article was locked down for awhile due to what an WP Administrator characterized as an edit war. The WP main Evolution page would be worthless if "all points of view" were entertained, that is why they have a warning at the top of their Talk Page. I proposed a similar warning for this page, which I believe would be helpful (see above).

This article is primarily to inform folks about the main theories and empirical findings of EP. It is not a debate page about politics, evolution itself, philosophy, or the nature vs. nurture debate. What I find disconcerting is that critics continually attempt to turn it into a long debate, and they include characterizations of the discipline that are simply false (genetic determinism, social darwinism, right-wing politics, un-scientific, narrow definition of the field, etc.). (Or, they haven't even done their basic homework to know enough about the discipline to accurately critique it -- see this embarrassing example.) As I have said repeatedly, these debates are better hashed out on the EP Controversy page.

But, I repeat myself. I have said all of this in various 'discussions' above. I welcome external reviews and suggestions by neutral 3rd parties. Memills (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your statement about what you think is the primary purpose of the article is incorrect and not supported by wikipedia policy. If your aim is to "inform about the main theories and findings" without also informing them about the historica, and political context of the topic and the ways in which EP has been criticized then wikipedia is the wrong place for you to be and you should consider another kind of webspace to fulfill that purpose. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the criticism - the criticism exists and more of it is published every year. It is completely fundamental and basic policy here that we include all notable viewpoints on a topic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One point to consider. That one can find a source or two is not evidence for that a critique is "frequent" or "common" or "Largely". Such claims should be removed unless there is a source claiming this and then this should be attributed to this source.Miradre (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Similarly, from its inception evolutionary psychology has received a substantial amount of criticism, sometimes degenerating into shrill, and widely publicized, discussions between evolutionary psychologists and some of their critics. Largely the controversy has consisted in each side caricaturing and stereotyping the other and neither side acknowledging the substantility of the arguments of the other." This is ad hominem/character assassination of a whole scientific branch and should at the very least be in quotes with an explicit attribution to who is making this claim.Miradre (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting it: there is an entire article about the controversy. There are more than ten books criticizing EP explicitly, there are dozens of articles. There are the same amount of Ep articles defending themselves against those critiques. Also the political and "ill founded" critiques. Introductory textbooks to Ep include chapters adressing the critiques point by point. A reader of this article at this point will not be aware of this. Ths is not NPOV. The claim that this passage is "ad-hominem~ is ludicrous it is specifically stating that both sides have done this so it is also not assasinating a "scientific branch" it is describing a debate which has documentedly occurred - and which is described in multiple (+5) reliable sources as having been chatracterized by mutual mischaracterization and adhominem attacks.·Maunus·ƛ·

Do these sources make exactly the same arguments? Even if two or three or more make the same argument that is not necessarily "frequent" or "common" today in science. Again, if a source itself make such a claim, then it could be included, with attribution. Describing researchers as "shrill" and a whole branch of science as "caricaturing and stereotyping" and not "acknowledging the substantility of the arguments of the other" are very large-scale ad-hominem/character attacks. At the very least it should be attributed and in quotes.Miradre (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are not ad-hominem attacks if they are not aimed at persons. This is a description of a debate that has included a lot of ad-hominem attacks by the involved researchers on both sides. There is wide agreement on both sides that the debate has been marked by a low level of rationality (although each side tends to blame the other). And yes Plotkin the source I am using for this claim states this clearly and he is clearly a pro-EP aligned author. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Maunus wants a version describing evolutionary researchers as "shrill" and the whole branch as "caricaturing and stereotyping" and not "acknowledging the substantility of the arguments of the other". Clearly inappropriate.Miradre (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a lie and ask you kindly to strike that. My version clearly describe researchers on both sides as being shrill. Furthermore the material comes from Plotkin who is a pro-EP author who recognizes that there are shrill voices on both sides of the debate. Also let it for the record be known that Miradre and I are involved in a dispute at Race and intelligence and that he has now decided to appear here out of the blue... ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That also critics are described that way does not remove the character assassination of a whole branch of scientists.Miradre (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, are you able to read? If so please do it more carefully. It says that some researchers on both sides - not all. That is by no means a character assasination of Ep as a whole. And it has a source.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not even in quotes or attributed but instead stated as an undisputed fact!Miradre (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, "Part of the controversy has consisted in each side accusing the other of holding or supporting extreme political viewpoints: Evolutionary psychology has been accused of being espoused by far-right activist because it can be used to support social darwinism policies. In some cases, but far from all, evolutionary psychologist have been connected to the political far-right." This implies that a large group of the researchers are connected with the far right!Miradre (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are such a hypocrite - you have no problems calling environmentalists for Marxists en-masse, but here where it is even source AND I add that some of the critics are in fact marxists you are shocked. Yuck.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to read Miradre? It says A few cases - this is again mentioned by Plotkin.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again it is not attributed explicitly as a personal view by Plotkin or in quotes but instead stated as an undisputed fact. "In some cases, but far from all" implies a substantial group.Miradre (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is quite revealing that Maunus has posted this RfC in the category of "Religion and Philosophy." I believe Maths, Science and Technology would be the appropriate category. Memills (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What does it reveal? I had to choose between science or social studies. I choose the most neutral category. Take your insinuations and stick them where the sun don't shine.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• statement I am now no longer going to respond to Miradre. His account has previously been dedicated to pushing a racialist agenda in articles regarding Race and intelligence studies - he is arriving here only because I recently sought to have him topic banned for his consistent pov pushing in that topic. I am not able to assume good faith in his case and it is better that I do not interact with him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology: Definition and Criticism

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The questions to be adressed in this RfC are:

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

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

Comments

• This ridiculous dispute has been going on for longer than three five years. See Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_2#NPOV_dispute for the last time I addressed the problem. You will notice that the common denominator in all of this is one editor, User:Memills, the primary contributor to this article. The only solution at this time is a short-term topic ban. Anything less will not work. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maunus has removed my comments on this without my permission! Restore immediately.Miradre (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maunus moved comments from this section to the section above without notification or discussion. Memills (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes I have. They were not adressing the topic, but were mostly adhominem attacks against me and detailed discussion of a verisons of the controversy section that I previously proposed but which has been reverted. This rfc is about HOW to include the criticism - not about my previous attempts to include it.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They were adressing what you want include in the article and were not ad hominem attacks against you. Removing the comments of another side is unacceptable and I ask you to restore them. Otherwise they can be read in my diff above.Miradre (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Inappropriate to move folks comments, Maunus. I'm restoring my comment, and your response, below: Memills (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is quite revealing that Maunus has posted this RfC in the category of "Religion and Philosophy." I believe Maths, Science and Technology would be the appropriate category. Memills (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What does it reveal? I had to choose between science or social studies. I choose the most neutral category. Take your insinuations and stick them where the sun don't shine.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, if you have the time and energy, I recommend following the roadmap to arbitration. It is obvious that an RfC will solve nothing, as Memills et al. will not budge on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, you already tried that tactic against me, and it didn't go in your favor. Also, your anti-EP POV has been pretty clear Talk:Evolutionary_psychology/Archive_2#NPOV_dispute. Memills (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have always advocated adding more controversy coverage to the page. I managed to get the controversy treated in the lead (over resistance), and I fleshed out the controversy section (which Maunus has also recently expanded). I seem to be the only editor who wants to cover both the controversy and EP's successes, which is why I claim the middle ground between the pro-EP and anti-EP editors. Clearly the top-level evolutionary psychology page should treat EP in general. It's not clear that the narrow version of EP deserves a page of its own, but if it does, then it's a subpage of this page. Leadwind (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC in the Maths, Science, and Technology category

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A previous RfC was made:

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

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

1. ^ Cosmides, L (1997-01-13). "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer". Center for Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved 2008-02-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
2. ^ Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference BS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference kleinbio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Wolpert, Lewis (2006). Six impossible things before breakfast, The evolutionary origins of belief. New York: Norton. p. 81. ISBN 0393064492.
6. Enard et al, 'Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language', Nature 418, 869 - 872, (2002)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class philosophy of science articles
• Low-importance philosophy of science articles
• Philosophy of science task force articles
• Start-Class Anthropology articles
• High-importance Anthropology articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment