Oh no I accidentally made a social psychology hate thread.
For what it's worth, I doubt half of social psychologists literally believe that evolution has not touched the human mind. I think the outcome of that question reflects the way that it was phrased.
It would have been better to break this into two questions:
1. Do Darwin's ideas of evolution apply to the human mind.
2. How many of our social preferences evolved across millions of years.
Debate might center more around the second question.
1. Do Darwin's ideas of evolution apply to the human mind.
2. How many of our social preferences evolved across millions of years.
Debate might center more around the second question.
It (and other questions in the paper) were intended to capture an ideological tendency toward favoring environmental or cultural explanations over individual differences.
But it's actually rare to see a psychologist take a true "blank slate" perspective.
But it's actually rare to see a psychologist take a true "blank slate" perspective.
The role of evolution in psychology isn't controversial.
Social psychologists who might deny that evolution shaped mate preferences probably wouldn't have a problem with an evolutionary explanation for something like cognitive biases.
Social psychologists who might deny that evolution shaped mate preferences probably wouldn't have a problem with an evolutionary explanation for something like cognitive biases.
It wouldn't be controversial to say that we evolved the ability to detect visual patterns because it provided some kind of survival benefit. Perhaps more of a cognitive psych example here.
Where it gets tricky is when you ask about something like attractiveness.
Or anything that intersects with sensitive beliefs.
There is a cultural narrative that attractiveness is subjective: "beauty in the eye of the beholder."
Or anything that intersects with sensitive beliefs.
There is a cultural narrative that attractiveness is subjective: "beauty in the eye of the beholder."
Revisiting the "universal standards" question, this might have been phrased in a better way as well.
"Universal" is a high bar, because exceptions can be found to trends that we see cross-culturally.
"Universal" is a high bar, because exceptions can be found to trends that we see cross-culturally.
There is a difference between "all humans agree on what is beautiful" and "evolution has shaped our mating preferences, but our preferences also interact with our environments in how the are expressed."
In this same paper Buss says evo psych isn't genetic determinism.
Phrasings like we are "hard wired" for "x quality of human nature," which are very common in popular discourse, miss this as well.
Perhaps one of the big misconceptions about evolutionary psychology.
Phrasings like we are "hard wired" for "x quality of human nature," which are very common in popular discourse, miss this as well.
Perhaps one of the big misconceptions about evolutionary psychology.
Something you'll notice in all of the papers I post is that they also rarely claim anything is entirely cultural or environmental.
Not because I exclude those or anything. I post whatever is topical and let you read it.
It's just that "it's all cultural" is a legit rare take.
Not because I exclude those or anything. I post whatever is topical and let you read it.
It's just that "it's all cultural" is a legit rare take.
I do avoid small sample qualitative papers though. I think you would be more likey to find unsubstantiated opinions in those.
Like "I analyzed the experience of 5 people from a Lacanian perspective." I skip right over those. That's basically a different field imo.
Like "I analyzed the experience of 5 people from a Lacanian perspective." I skip right over those. That's basically a different field imo.
And most of what I post is coming from some subdomain of social psychology that also is not evolutionary psychology. Probably personality psych most often.
Most of what everyone thinks they know about human behavior, especially if it comes down to relationships, traces back to a social psychologist at one point.
If you're interested in questions like "do women prefer tall men (and why)" and you go look it up, who will have collected all that data? Usually, social psychologists.
So, social psychology is a huge umbrella. Try to evaluate individual findings on their own merits. "Psychologists dumb" isn't a Big Brain take or a good conclusion from the paper.
Presumably you agree with the half of soc psychologists who think evolution shaped social prefs.
Presumably you agree with the half of soc psychologists who think evolution shaped social prefs.
Loading suggestions...