Evolutionary Psychology Critical Assessment

Name:

Institution:

Lecturer:

Course:

Date:

Evolutionary Psychology Critical Assessment

Evolutionary psychology (EP) was primarily established to build on an approach that tackles natural and social sciences examining psychological traits such as perception, memory, and language. This approach further seeks to identify which psychological traits are evolved adaptations in human beings – that is, functional products of sexual or natural selection. Evolutionary psychology puts into application a similar school of thought to psychology. EP argues that the human mind possesses a similar modular structure to that of the body with different serving modular adaptations (Hoffrage, 2005). Evolutionary psychologists assert that much of sex differences in humans are a result of psychological adaptations evolved to counteract recurrent problems in human environments.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that EP not only a psychology sub discipline, but also an evolutionary theory providing a foundation integrating the entire psychology field. Traits or behaviors occurring in all cultures universally are good evolutionary adaptations as evolutionary psychologists argue (Hoffrage, 2005). These traits and behaviors also include one’s ability to infer emotions, differentiate kin from non-kin, discern and prefer healthy mates, and cooperating with others. These traits present successful theoretical predictions related to sex differences, marriage patterns, beauty perception, promiscuity, parental investment and bride price. Just as human psychology has purposed to identify human physical adaptations that present human psychological nature, evolutionary psychology also serves to identify evolved sex differences in human psychological nature.

In accordance with Steven Pinker, an evolutionary psychologist, EP is a large set of hypothesis rather than a single theory on human nature. In addition, he continues to assert that it refers to a particular approach of applying the theory of evolution to mind, emphasizing on modularity, gene selection, and sex differences (Hoffrage, 2005). In addition, evolutionary psychology implements the mind understanding based on computational theory in relation sex differences. It also describes mental processes in the form of computational operations- that is, for example, an emotional response is described to arise from neurological computation.

While philosophers have had a school of thought that the human mind includes broad facilities such as lust and reason towards this lust, evolutionary psychologists describe psychological evolution mechanisms as primarily focused on dealing with particular issues (Lycett, 2005). These issues include choosing a suitable mate or catching cheaters practicing infidelity. Evolutionary psychology views the human mind as possessing numerous functional mechanisms. These functional mechanisms are referred to as cognitive mechanisms or psychological adaptations established by the natural selection process (Hoffrage, 2005). Examples of these modules include incest avoidance mechanisms, language acquisition modules, sex specific mating preferences, intelligence, and agent detection mechanisms among others.

As with general adaptations, adaptations in psychology are considered to be environment specified with regard to the evolved organism, in this case the human. Sexual differences and selection provide organism with mating adaptations. For male mammals, which have a faster rate of reproduction, sexual differences between them and females lead to them fighting among themselves to compete for mates (Hantula, 2003). On the other hand, females have relatively slower reproduction rate and thus leads them to being choosier compared to males. This therefore grants them the opportunity of selecting males with high health and quality.

Moreover, evolutionary psychologists assert that traits and behaviors occur among all cultures universally in the case of evolutionary adaptations. Universal cultures in this case include language related behavior, social roles, cognition, gender roles as well as technology. Evolution in psychological adaptations, for example, ability to differentiate how male and female interact with cultural inputs when producing particular behaviors. Basic differences in gender, such a greater sexual eagerness among men and higher degrees of coyness among women, are considered sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations. These adaptations represent the differing reproductive strategies witnessed among females and males. In addition, evolutionary psychologists have contrasting approaches to what they refer to as “standard social science model” (Hoffrage, 2005). In accordance to this school of thought, the human mind is a cognition device with a general purpose predominantly shaped by culture.

Away from the merits, evolutionary psychology has warranted significant criticism and controversy from its conflicting facts and theories. This criticism of this approach include disputing evolutionary hypothesis testability, alternatives to the cognitive assumptions frequently implemented in evolutionary psychology, vagueness emanating from the approach’s assumptions, differing emphasis on relevance of non adaptive and non genetic explanations, and finally ethical and political issues (Rose, 2000). In turn, evolutionary psychologists in support of their theory argue that these criticisms lack foundation, and are based on nurture dichotomy versus incorrect nature, or otherwise based on a misunderstanding thought of the discipline (Rose, 2000).

One method employed by evolutionary psychologists in their disciplines is implementing knowledge of the environment warranting the evolutionary adaptation in questions. This knowledge is in turn used to generate conclusions regarding these psychological adaptations. Part of the criticism on the evolutionary psychology includes critique on the environment adaptation part (Rose, 2000). Evolutionary Psychology suggests that human evolution took place in a uniform environment. Critiques argue that we have minimal knowledge concerning this particular environment warranting the adaptation. Therefore, according to the criticism, particular traits resulting from this adaptation in the environment is rather speculative.

Evolutionary psychologists in defense state that their research was confined to facts they were certain occurred in these environments. These certainties include pregnancies occurring in women only and that humans were social thus lived in groups. They further assert that numerous environmental features should be held constant considering that particular time and age. They argue that considering the level of civilization, our ancestors were hunters and gatherers who had to hunt prey and deal with predators (Lycett, 2005). They also engaged in food acquisition and sharing practices, making choices concerning their mates, raising children, interpersonal assistance, and interpersonal aggression. Therefore, this environment provided livelihood challenges and thus commanded selection pressures (Rose, 2000). Further knowledge in their defense is represented by the kin and nomadic based lifestyles these people lived, long female lactation and pregnancy, tool use, and labor division with regard to differences in sex. In this case, men engaged in tougher and riskier tasks compared to women.

Another criticism facing this discipline hails from the declaration that evolutionary psychology does not shed light on individual development complexity and experiences, and therefore fails to explain genetic influence on certain individual behaviors. Furthermore, critiques go on to state that evolutionary psychology has problems developing conclusions capable of distinguishing between cultural and environmental explanation, and explanations on evolutionary adaptations (Rose, 2000). In addition, some studies in this field have faced criticism for their tendency of relating to human cognition processing elements that have no linkage towards to dialectical considerations or social processes. In my opinion, regardless of the tussle between evolutionary psychology theories and the criticism behind them, I have found this field useful in my study. Moreover, I have gained broad knowledge concerning behaviors of an organism and their linkage to the environment.

Reference

Arentze, T., & Timmermans, H. (January 01, 2001). Inductive learning approach to evolutionary decision processes in activity-scheduling behavior: Theory and numerical experiments. Transportation Research Record, 1752, 1-15.

Hantula, D. A. (January 01, 2003). Evolutionary psychology. Psychology & Marketing. , 20, 9.)

Hoffrage, U., Todd, P. M., & Hertwig, R. (January 01, 2005). Evolutionary cognitive psychology. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 776-802.

Lycett, J. E., & Dunbar, R. I. (January 01, 2005). Evolutionary psychology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 1, 15-16.

Rose, H., & Rose, S. P. R. (2000). Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. New York: Harmony Books.