The rise of the evolutionary psychology douchebag

[LeftishBrit]

106. In 2010, I said of evolutionary psychology..

I think a lot of it shows fundamental confusions about both evolution and behavioural genetics...
Posted by LeftishBrit on Sat Feb-27-10 04:05 PM

It hardly needs to be said that evolution occurs at the genetic level, not at the level of the individual item of behaviour.

And almost all behavioural characteristics involve not single genes, but multiple genes interacting with each other and with the environment.

Moreover, a characteristic could evolve not because it has direct advantages to the individual, but because it is genetically associated with some other characteristic that is. Even at the single-gene level: sickle-cell anaemia is surprisingly common in some areas of the world, not because it conveys an evolutionary advantage (it clearly does not), but because having *one* gene for this recessive disorder confers relative resistance to malaria. It's likely that there are lots of similar genetic associations that we don't even know about at present.

I suspect, for example, that a lot of the evolutionary explanations for behavioural gender differences and how they might have been an advantage in early societies are missing the point. Gender differences in cognition and behaviour are much smaller than is often assumed anyway, but insofar as they exist: they appear to be mainly associated with differences in level of male and female sex hormones. Since sex hormones are *directly* associated with fertility and reproduction, particular levels of such hormones would most probably evolve for *that* reason; their effects on the brain might be a byproduct.

Of course, *some* genetic variations could well have increased in frequency because of their effects on a particular behaviour; but we need to be careful before making simplistic assumptions that 'people do X; therefore there must be a specific evolutionary advantage in X'.'




I would add to that: some evolutionary psychologists, especially those who do not have an initial background in evolutionary biology or in brain sciences, can sound remarkably like creationists. X exists: therefore it has a specific purpose; and we should not try to prevent it, because that is going against the will of God, oops, I mean the purposes of evolution. Kanazawa went so far as to describe feminism as 'evil' on those grounds.

I am not of course objecting to the general view that the brain, like other organs, is a product of evolution; just to the confusion between natural selection of genes and natural selection of behaviours.