I am going to write an ongoing series on Darwinian Psychology (aka Evolutionary Psychology). Unfortunately, my chosen field (psychology) has probably generated more “just so”(1,2) stories than has biology. Paleontologist and Darwinist, Stephen J. Gould, wrote about “Darwinian Fundamentalism”,(3) and specifically singled out Darwinian Psychology for criticism. He also noted the similarity between Darwinism and fundamentalism:
But since the modern ultras [Ultra Darwinists] push their line with an almost theological fervor, and since the views of founding fathers do matter in religion, though supposedly not in science, Darwin’s own fierce opposition does become a factor in judgment.(3)
Equivalent of Darwinian Just So Story
I have noted an interesting phenomena among scientists and in “scientific” writings. Presenting a Darwinian “just so” story for the phenomena that you are discussing seems to provide the research with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is as if a Darwinian “just so” story is a suitable substitute for empirical data.
For those who study persuasion, they will note a similar phenomena in the general population. For example, people dressed in a suit and tie are more persuasive than those not dressed in this manner.(4) Authority is conferred to individuals dressed in this manner. For those of us who worked in an hospital setting in graduate school, we were always excited when we were able to wear a white lab coat, because the patients listened to us better and were more apt to follow our instructions.
As an aside, this may be related to evolutionary factors indicating intelligence. Intelligence among our ancestors may have been displayed by having unique abilities (such as making unique tools or being able to communicate in a way that less intelligent apes could not understand).[1] Over time, our ancestors would have developed a mutation to recognize these symbols as promoting survival, and would have thus been more attracted to individuals who displayed these symbols. [Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.]
So, I hope you enjoy this forthcoming series analyzing pseudoscientific Darwinian Psychology. There is a wealth of material upon which to draw. The motto for this area seems to be, “If it sounds good and references evolution, then it is science.”
—References—
(1) Just So Stories, Wikipedia
(2) Darwin Says “Just So…”
(3) Darwinian Fundamentalism, Stephen J. Gould, (1997)
(4) Perceived Symbols of Authority and Their Influence on Compliance, Bushman, B.J. (1984)
—Notes—
[1]. I have generated a Darwinian Just So Story to help provide credibility to this post. Did it work?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 26, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Thomas Cleberg
I understand the pull against strict evolutionary (or as you say) Darwinist Psychology, as it does self-reference to an extreme degree, even for a branch of Psychology which is an inherently self-referential discipline, and I hope that this aspect of it won’t blind you to the possible benefits of such a frame for research and legitimate contributions to the field.
November 26, 2008 at 8:13 pm
thecountryshrink
I’d be willing to hear about those “legitimate contributions.” So far, I have found none. In your opinion, in what ways has Darwinian Psychology improved the lives of human beings?
November 27, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Thomas Cleberg
Ah, sorry. I view psychology as the mere pursuit of knowledge about the human mind and it’s workings, and with an academic detachment, and even then as an amateur. You’re actively involved in actually using the ideas to make people’s lives better, which I can’t say I’ve been involved in. They’re abstract to me, functional for you. This is not to say that I better understand or research the theoretical side than you do, naturally.
You will notice that I indicated “possible benefits” of the frame. My intention in using that phrase was to indicate that I don’t, in fact, have a reference for what these benefits may be, but to remain open to the possibility that there may be some. It makes me happy to see that you are, so instead of Googling some research and coughing it out as some kind of challenge, I’d like to learn your point of view.
Why is the process for intelligence and attraction to intelligence that you’ve outlined and ridiculed in your post ridiculous? I may not have thought deeply enough about the subject, but it seems at least logical in progression and certainly not self-apparently contradictory. It would help me greatly if you could enlighten me, and if there are any insights you would like in return I’d be more than happy to reciprocate.
November 30, 2008 at 7:10 am
thecountryshrink
I’m not interested in possible benefits. Don’t feel bad. Even psychology Darwinists can’t answer this question.
Because I made it up off of the top of my head in about 30 to 60 seconds. It’s just a story.
November 30, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Thomas Cleberg
“Because I made it up off of the top of my head in about 30 to 60 seconds. It’s just a story.”
It’s a story that’s really, really close to one of the actual theories about the evolution of intelligence.
November 30, 2008 at 9:12 pm
thecountryshrink
That ought to be a bit disturbing that I can develop something akin to an “official” theory in 30-60 seconds. Besides it’s not a theory in any scientific sense because it cannot be tested or falsified.