I Debunked Evolutionary Psychology - münecat
I Debunked Evolutionary Psychology - münecat
Edit - Addendum: The video title is quite clickbait-y. The video doesn't want to debunk any "serious" science, but rather investigates how badly done research with no reproducability or horrible statistical significance is used to influence the discourse in favour of regressive politics.
münecat is always welcome here.
The title caught my eye because I learnt evolutionary psychology + behavioural ecology + game theory in a combined course, in university, back in the days.
I don't think any of them can be debunked, they are solid methods for studying why an agent behaves in some way. The study could be done poorly, the studied behaviour might be adequate for the current environment, or detrimental since the environment has changed. The agent could be anything from amoebas to people (but also an algorithm, company, state or alliance). You can use an evolutionary perspective if it has faced evolution - copying, mutation and selection. Just to introduce the toolkit:
Evolutionary psychology:
"seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve"
Behavioural ecology:
"is the study of the evolutionary basis for animal behavior due to ecological pressures"
Game theory:
"is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents"
I think the video is needlessly long. The author (I don't know their name, just their YouTube handle "münecat") gets to the essential point fairly early:
"...and this is being communicated to a public who don't know how to engage it critically. Political pundits will use small, convenient sections of it as a weapon of truth, as others will use sections of it as a misleading marketing tactic..."
...and that's about it. People aren't prepared to use scientific methods. Just like you get social darwinism if you introduce a person with strong prejudices and weak scientific habits to the concept of evolution, we seem to have various silly approaches to evolutionary psychology floating around. I have noticed these on my own, and noted that they mostly float in a field that I would call "popular explanations to gender relations" - because sex sells.
In adequate hands, all three methods have considerable analytical value, however. You can use them to understand seemingly irrational actions, find hidden variables and build better models to predict how animals, people and organizations interact. Ultimately, you can use these tools to prevent people from doing stupid things - either by making them aware of the typical pitfalls, or by designing environments which don't have the pits to fall into. :)
The video addresses the social impact evopsych pundits currently have, especially when it comes to "mating behaviour". From what I've gathered, there's more or less two camps of evopsych: Theories that explain states of fear or that the only conditioning that only needs one exposure to manifest is disgust and theories that claim that women smell genetical traits in potential mates when ovulating. One of these is valid, the other one is used by conservatives to justify the status quo.
The video tackles the social phenomenon and all the pseudo-scientific grifters who perpetuate regressive worldviews (pseudo-scientific grifters are usually a target of her videos). I actually gsnuinely learned something about genetics from the video, so I think it's worth the watch.
And the video also adresses that there are a ton of badly done, but published and cited papers in evopsych. That's a well established problem of psychology: lots of papers can't be reproduced in psychology and are over-cited, due to a bias against doing control studies.
The title caught my eye because I learnt evolutionary psychology ... in university
I don’t think any of them can be debunked, they are solid methods for studying why an agent behaves in some way.
Please keep in mind that Eugenics was also considered a solid method. A scientific solid method, actually. It was taught in medical schools all over the world. Well, the colonial world that is.
You could be interested in the following article:
Eugenics and its evolution in the history of western psychology: A critical archival review
According to the Pioneer Fund's archived website, it claims to have “changed the face of the social and behavioural sciences by restoring the Darwinian‐Galtonian perspective to the mainstream in traditional fields such as . . . psychology . . . as well as fostering the newer disciplines of behavioral genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and sociobiology”
Among the few scholars who rejected eugenics and contested eugenic discourse in psychology prior to World War II were John Dewey and Gordon Allport (...). In the later part of the twentieth century scientists across many disciplines have thought to expose and discredit eugenics‐influenced psychology contributions in move- ments such as social biology, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary psychology (...). The eugenic origins of intelligence testing have also been examined (...). In addition, race, gender, sexuality and other human differences as social rather than biological constructions have also been re‐emphasized in psychology (...).
I'm aware of what eugenics is / was, along with some other curious things that preceded (e.g. phrenology). I would say: a branch of science is likely to deserve the prefix "pseudo" if it has a single-minded goal to improve before understanding. Eugenics was such a doctrine.
Hypothetically, after gaining actual understanding of what genes are "good" or "bad" (quotation marks since "good" genes are only good in a given environment together with compatible other genes), eugenics might rise from the dead, but likely under another name and with a different character - since the original name has a ruined reputation and the original character was one of repression / discrimination. Indeed, maybe the resurrection has already happened, and the name is medical genetics - finding genetic patterns of risk and ways to avoid risk or fix results (apply gene therapy).
I find it extremely unlikely that either evolutionary psychology, behavioural ecology or game theory would end up in the rubbish bin where eugenics went, because the premises of these studies seem quite strong.
I could say "evolutionary psychology is useless" but then I'd have to prove that: a) humans haven't participated in evolution or b) evolution cannot produce psychological traits or c) psychological traits cannot have evolutionary value or generally aren't worth study. I cannot prove that, so the foundation seems solid. Applicability - well, that is another question. I find the greatest applicability in explaining animal psychology, because you cannot ask animals why they do things.
I could say "behavioural ecology is useless", but then I'd have to prove that either: a) behaviour has no part in ecological interactions or b) behaviour has no patterns worthy of study or c) ecological relations have no patterns worthy of study. I cannot.
I could say "game theory is useless", but then I would have to prove that rational agents don't use strategic calculations, or there are no rational agents, or that strategy is not worthy of study. I can't - instead I find it extremely useful.
Got to about 3 minutes and couldn't watch any more. She's not arguing against evolutionary psychology, she's arguing against idiots on the Internet who hold up evolutionary psychology to justify their views.
Doesn't she mention published evopsych papers right from the very beginning?
Edit: 3 minutes is literally the end of the intro. You didn't watch any actual content of the video if that's a correct statement.
Doesn't she mention published evopsych papers right from the very beginning?
She shows some titles, I'm not sure if they're headlines from newspaper articles or titles of peer-reviewed papers. Regardless, she doesn't discuss evolutionary psychology at all in what I watched, she just talks about idiots on the Internet.
Edit: 3 minutes is literally the end of the intro. You didn't watch any actual content of the video if that's a correct statement.
Edit: right. Because given what I did watch, there's no reason for me to watch any more.