You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'evolutionary psychology' tag.
There’s no doubt about it, the average American diet is atrocious. Give us the 44 ounce softdrinks, Big Macs, ice cream, and snack cakes, and we’ll take that every time over a healthy diet of fruit and vegetables. Obesity is referred to as an “epidemic” in America. I agree with all of that.[1] Here’s where I get off of the bus:
Maybe your mother didn’t cry, “Mangia!” when you ate dinner, like mine did. Still, you’re likely to whisper it to yourself. That’s because you possess a simple survival impulse: Eat until sated. Our neanderthink legacy is to store as much energy as possible, since calories were scarce and uncertain for most of human evolutionary history and our metabolism was set to guard against the possibility of starvation tomorrow. The problem is that eating more doesn’t sate us; we merely recalibrate how much we think we need.
Our evolved mind-set on food hinders us in several ways. Our instincts tell us to keep eating well beyond when we are sated. Worse, the foods we crave—calorie-dense fats and sugars—were once rare and valued as a bulwark against starvation; now they’re plentiful and harmful in excess. We don’t crave plants, precisely because they were more abundant in our past. And if we do manage to temporarily gain a handle on the gustatory Disneyland in which we live, our dietary rigor plummets once we’ve lost weight.(1)
So, the notion is that our Neanderthink makes us do it. For the sake of argument, let’s say I concede this point for a moment. What is the recommendation?
We’re good at rationalizations to avoid governing our food intake. We tell ourselves, “I can get away with eating this delicious morsel,” or “It’s too hard to deny myself this scrumptious ice cream.” By yielding to such urges, we ratchet upward the amount of sugar and fat we crave, because we are tampering with a hormonal system finely attuned to the lack of such concentrated energy. On the savannah, the sweetest confection was wild fruit.
Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, famously summed up what you need to know to consume healthfully: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The method by which we might hew to this Paleolithic regimen can also be summed up in seven words: “Dieting gets easier if you don’t cheat.”
So the question is, how do the recommendations actually follow from the just so story? They don’t. It’s just, “Don’t eat too much, and eat mostly plants. Oh yeah, don’t cheat.” But this goes back to the premise of my original post, and that is that the Darwinian Psychology narrative is thought to add scientific authority to whatever is being discussed. Forget the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise in the article. That is irrelevant to why these folks invoke a Darwinian just so story. They think it adds credibility. For me, they just prevented the story from being printed out and handed to my patients, which could have been beneficial.
The same periodical also published an article entitled, How to Be a Good Storyteller not long before.(2)
Perhaps they find these articles unrelated, but I found them to be very related:
Stories also entertain, educate, and instill moral values—sometimes all at once. We can all tell narratives, whether in the classroom, the boardroom, or the living room, but it takes practice to become a fine raconteur.
It seems the folks over at Psychology Today have been getting their practice.
—References—
(1) Neanderthink: An Outsize Appetite, Courtesy of Evolution, Nando Pelusi Ph.D., (11/17/08), Psychology Today
(2) How to Spin a Good Story, Brian Andrew, (10/20/08), Psychology Today
—Footnotes—
[1] I have a simple experiment which I use to teach my patients about their diet. This one has to do with sugar, and more specifically folks who are addicted to soft drinks. Go two weeks without any soft drinks (it actually doesn’t matter if it’s a diet soft drink or regular), and then go out and buy the biggest soft drink you can. Then it will be clear to you what it does to your mind and body. This is something that has worked in each case. In fact, the research shows that drinking just one diet soft drink daily increases the risk of being overweight to an extent that is greater than regular soft drinks, although not by much. One diet soft drink daily increases your chances by approximately 42% whereas one sugar filled drink increases your chances by 38%. It goes up with each additional drink per day.
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?
They use it to explain practically everything about human psychology. And when an old idea is disproved, no problem, they explain the new theory in terms of evolution. The notion of free will with an evolutionary psychologist is a non-starter. So, their research tends to follow from that.
The assumption is determinism, that “… every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.” (1)
The next assumption is that all human behavior serves an evolutionary purpose. Now, let us stop and consider for a moment the societal implications of such a view.
1). Law and its consequences are largely based on the notion of free will.
2). The notion of marriage is a religious institution..or at least that’s how it started.
3). In the US at least, we believe that all people are created equally and have sought to right wrongs against folks who were not treated as if they were created equally.
So, quite simply, one could view the motivation of evolutionary psychology as having the intent (consciously or unconsciously) of undermining the most important elements for the stability of society. Even though these elements would likely be viewed as ‘adaptive’ in allowing the species to survive. As an aside, I wonder what an evolutionary explanation would be for the study of evolutionary psychology (in other words, how is DNA preserved through this pursuit). But I digress….
So from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which has an underlying liberal political perspective in the US, people are not responsible for their behavior (”My genes made me do it!”), marriage is whatever you want it to be, and people with different characteristics could be considered less evolved or at least posing a threat to the survival of the most fit DNA.
Now all of this despite the fact that no simple aspect of human behavior has found to be genetically determined. There’s some evidence for general dispositions (emotional reactivity or sensation seeking), but as for specific behaviors, there is no evidence for any specific behavior that is tied to our genes.
So, I will present some evidence that evolutionary psychology undermines the basis for civilization, if accepted.
Evidence for the undermining of point 1.
Why Men Rape — It helps propagate the gene pool!! It’s not about power, domination, and control. What were you thinking?
Muslims Resort to Suicide Bombing with Hopes of Breeding — See point 4. It asserts that since Muslims are polygymist, that there are less females available. So the the offer of 72 virgins in the after life offers them a chance to finally propogate their genes! So, I suppose the problem of Muslim suicide bombers would be solved by allowing them to rape someone or otherwise propagate their genes. That motivation would completely disappear….right?? If you want to actually learn something about the Arab mind, I recommend ShrinkWrapped’s currently 15 part series.
Crime is the result of men’s competitive desires — See point 7. Those who act violently towards other men, may have been more likely to reproduce! So, next time you feel angry, go ahead and punch the sucker. You’re more likely to have some fun in bed if so, and if you’re lucky, keep the DNA of humans going! Or, play that midnight basketball, that will give you an outlet for you competitive strivings based on our evolutionary history….but I’m not sure how it will help you spread your genes. Worth a try though…who knows, right??
Evidence for undermining point 2.
Humans are by nature polygamist– See point 7. That’s right…and we should pass laws allowing polygamy then! It asserts that men benefit from monogamy…hmmph….and women benefit from polygamy…what?? That doesn’t seem right to me, but what the hey, I’m a man… Now, I really don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage as it is a religious institution, but that is beside the point. But we’d be fine as far as suicide bombers coming from the US go, because Christianity has no promise of virgins in the afterlife.
Homosexuality and the consolation prize — That’s right…for you homosexual males…your problem is that you can’t find a woman. And ditto (opposite obviously) for lesbians. But, again, I think marriage should be between folk and God. But the government’s involvement has sociological ramifications when they allow gay marriage…. The government should have no part in marriage.
Evidence for point 3.
Asians rock, whites are so-so, and blacks…well… Okay, so it’s just fine to be a racist. Let’s go ahead and kill off those two inferior sub-types…so that we end up with a superior gene pool. I think everyone knows where this type of thinking has led in the past.
So you think evolutionary psychology is cool??? I don’t… I think if it were accepted on large scale, it would undermine the basis of civilization. Not only that, but I think it is blatantly false in almost all of its assertions.
Recent Comments