[PREV - SLATE_GRAY]    [TOP]

JUST_SO_PINK

                                             August 31, 2012

More about a piece by H. Allen Orr in the New
York Review of Books on the problems with
Pinker's style of "evolutionary psychology":          https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/02/27/darwinian-storytelling/

"Darwinian Storytelling"                                   SLATE_GRAY
February 27, 2003

  "As his book progresses it becomes clear that Pinker
  is committed to a particular and strong strain of
  psychology. It's not just that minds emerge from
  neurons (no Ghost in the Machine). And it's not just
  that some features of minds-- grammar, say-- are
  genetically hardwired (no Blank Slate). It's that we         Orr gives examples
  can 'reverse engineer' the mind and the mental               of Pinker's modules:
  modules that allegedly make it up."
                                                                  grammar
  "... we as psychologists can infer the                          visual-perception
  evolutionary 'purpose' of behaviors and mental                  cheater-detection
  modules by studying when they come into play in
  daily life and how they increase reproductive                "Modules"?  Much like
  success. ...  In short Pinker champions a                    Kahneman's "Systems"...
  Darwinian psychology of human beings."
                                                                   FIRE_MIND


    "Pinker's fondness for 'evolutionary psychology' will come as no
    surprise to those who remember _How the Mind Works_. But it is
    surprising to see how extreme he has become. Pinker seems never to
    have met an adaptive tale he doesn't like. Rape is likely an adaptive
    strategy pursued by low-status males who are 'alienated from a
    community' and 'unable to win the consent of women.' A gene that
    predisposes such males to rape will spread. Neonaticide, the killing
    of newborns, reflects the evolutionary calculus of conflict between
    parent and offspring. A gene that predisposes mothers to kill newborns
    when times are tough, saving resources for reproduction when times are
    better, will also spread. Weak armies may march suicidally into
    bat-tle because of natural selection.  Evolution favors bluffing in
    confrontations (an opponent might, after all, back down) which in turn
    favors some self-deception (you're a better liar if you believe your
    own lie). Psychopaths may walk among us because of an esoteric
    evolutionary phenomenon called frequency-dependent selection. A gene
    that predisposes one to lie, cheat, and manipulate may enjoy an
    advantage when rare (since most people are trusting and thus
    vulnerable) but not when common. And so it goes. "


    "Now there's no reason to think that Pinker's psychology-as-adaptive-tale
    is inherently hopeless. A Darwinian approach to mind may be no more
    impossible than a Darwinian approach to mammaries, and an
    evolutionary psychology might well reveal something about human
    nature. Indeed any or all of Pinker's adaptive tales could be true. But
    there are grounds for worry. One is that, despite Pinker's confident tone,
    the evidence for his stories varies wildly and some of his tales are sheer
    speculation. There is, for example, little or no evidence that either
    human neonaticide or self-deception is genetic. These cases are in fact
    symptomatic of a serious problem with evolutionary psychology: its
    research program shows a curious tendency to invert itself. You might
    think that convincing evidence that a particular form of behavior is
    inherited usually leads to attempts to explain how and why it evolved.
    But often what happens is the reverse: the fact that we can conceive of
    an adaptive tale about why a behavior should evolve becomes the chief
    reason for suspecting it's genetic. Why, after all, does Pinker think
    human neonaticide might be genetic? Where are the twin studies,
    chromosome locations, and DNA sequences supporting such a claim?
    The answer is we don't have any."


    " ... evolutionary psychologists sometimes forget a hard truth: a
    Darwinian story is not Mendelian evidence. A Darwinian story is a story.
    And the accumulation of such stories has an important consequence.
    The slate may seem to get less and less blank in part because
    evolutionary psychologists keep scribbling more and more tales on it."



--------
[NEXT - PINK_SLATE]