Why Is Evolutionary Psychology Controversial?

Source: AD_Images

Here’s a small thought experiment: Which of the following two statements do you think would generate more controversy in our modern world:

A. Men focus more on markers of fertility, such as lustrous hair and full lips, than women do when it comes to selecting a mate.

B. Basic emotions, such as joy, are expressed similarly in cultural groups across the globe.

A study that my team conducted a few years back (Geher & Gambacorta, 2010) found that statements related to psychological sex differences (such as the first statement from above) are much more politicized and controversial than are statements about general human universals (such as the second statement from above).

Interestingly, both of these kinds of phenomena fit under the broad umbrella of evolutionary psychology. Both can be thought of as psychological features that were shaped by eons of Hominid evolution to help our ancestors have increased likelihoods of survival and/or reproductive success.

The bottom line of our research on this topic is essentially this: Many modern academics, intellectuals, and educated laypeople aren’t resistant to evolutionary psychology so much as they are resistant to the idea of evolved behavioral sex differences which, as will be addressed later in this post, is only a slice of the broader field of evolutionary psychology. This said, many people seem to conflate (unnecessarily confuse) the broader idea of evolutionary psychology with the narrower research area of evolved behavioral sex differences. And, as you'll see, this is a problem.

Many Modern Scholars Hate Evolutionary Psychology Because of the Idea of Evolved Behavioral Sex Differences

In 2006, I was fortunate to have a carbonated beverage with renowned evolutionary psychologist David Buss when he visited New Paltz to give a talk. During our conversation, I asked David if he thought his (1996) book, Sex, Power, and Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives (co-edited with Neil Malamuth) had a positive impact on changing attitudes about evolutionary psychology among feminists.

His answer was delivered quickly and powerfully: “The impact was like throwing a pebble into a black hole.”

In an intensive piece of research on the topic of feminism and evolutionary psychology, Winegard, Winegard, and Deaner (2014) carefully analyzed how evolution-based ideas are presented in textbooks on sex and gender (offered by both psychology and sociology departments). In their systematic analysis (which included very strong methods for maintaining the reliability of coding) they analyzed 15 of the most widely used textbooks in this area. Specifically, they looked for occurrences of eight specific kinds of errors–they looked for content that showed erroneous conceptions of evolutionary ideas.

The specific errors that they found included the following:

1. The “Lack of Evidence” error (which suggests that there is no evidence for any evolution-based hypotheses, in spite of the existence of thousands of empirical studies that have been published in this area)
2. The “Nature/Nurture Dichotomy” error (which suggests that evolutionary psychologists see behavior as being either due to biological factors (nature) or environmental factors (nurture); in fact, many evolutionary concepts, such as life history strategy, include an interaction of both kinds of factors (see Geher, 2006))
3. The “Naturalistic Fallacy” (which occurs when someone sees a finding presented as “natural” and erroneously infers that this finding is somehow being framed as how things “should be”)
4. The “Political Agenda” Fallacy (which suggests that evolutionary psychologists have a politically conservative bias and that research conducted in this area is tainted accordingly (which is simply not true; see Tybur et al., 2007)
5. The “Species Selection” Fallacy (which suggests that evolutionary psychology is premised on somehow trying to “improve the species” as a whole; simply not true: see Dawkins, 1976)
6. The “Strawman Argument” (which paints evolutionary psychology, in one way or another, as illogical and/or unscientific; again, simply not true: see Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000)
7. The “Intentionalistic Fallacy” (which erroneously assumes that evolutionary psychologists see humans as conscious fitness optimizers (intentionally trying to reproduce) as opposed to unconscious adaptation implementers, which is actually much more fitting of how evolutionary psychologists conceptualize human behavior)
8. The “Mechanical Demonstration” (which assumes that if a scholar doesn’t understand the specific mechanics of some phenomenon (such as an evolutionary scholar not knowing which particular gene variants relate to some adaptation) then the information is void)

A short version of the results of that research is this: Many of the textbooks committed many of these errors.

To the current point regarding a fierce attitude toward the idea of behavioral sex differences, it is noteworthy that many of the examples used by the authors of this article, as selected by the textbooks that were analyzed, specifically draw upon behavioral sex differences as being particularly problematic. Consider some of the below examples:

• (Political Agenda): Another concern is the claim that gender differences have evolved over time, which implies that gender differences are inevitable and unchangeable. Biology then becomes an excuse for accepting differences and not advocating for social change (Rider, 2005, p. 117; as cited in Winegard et al., 2014).
• (Intentionalistic Error): The sociobiological view of sex differences assumes that sexual intercourse will lead–or is intended to lead–to reproduction. Today, I doubt that the majority of men are thinking about establishing paternity and the majority of women are thinking about their partners‘ ability to support a child when deciding whether or not to engage in sex. (Helgeson, 2012, p. 114; as cited in Winegard et al., 2014)
• (Mechanical Demonstration Error): Evolutionary psychology has failed to incorporate this work, and fails to specify which genes and biochemicals are responsible for the patterns of gender differences that they claim have evolved. (Hyde and Else-Quest, 2013, p. 35; as cited in Winegard et al., 2014)

Takeaway points: Many feminist scholars despise evolutionary psychology specifically as it relates to the idea of evolved behavioral sex differences. Further, many of these same scholars hold an erroneous view of evolutionary psychology. Sigh.

Evolutionary Psychology Extends Well Beyond Evolved Behavioral Sex Differences Anyway

Evolutionary Psychology Essential Reads

Inherited Psychology and History in Human Social Evolution

Money Matters for Big Families in the Big City

As pointed out in detail in our new book Positive Evolutionary Psychology, Darwin’s Guide to Living a Richer Life (Geher & Wedberg, 2020), the field of evolutionary psychology is extremely broad in its scope. While research on evolved behavioral sex differences certainly has been a prolific slice of the broader field of evolutionary psychology (see Buss, 2017) it is hardly the only thing that is studied within this field. As we demonstrate in detail in our book, evolutionary psychologists study such broad-ranging topics as:

• Parenting
• Education
• Politics
• Emotions
• Morality
• Social Life
• Religion
• Aggression
• Mental Health
• Physical Health
• Technology and Behavior

And more.

The field of evolutionary psychology addresses any and all facets of the behavioral and psychological experience (Carmen et al., 2013). The conflation of “evolutionary psychology” with “the study of evolved behavioral sex differences” is, simply, unfortunate at best.

Bottom Line

In 1859, Charles Darwin published a book that would permanently change how we understand the world and our place in it. This said, modern academia has famously put up barricades when it comes to the teaching of evolution—especially when it comes to ways that evolution bears on the human experience.

Many scholars conflate “evolutionary psychology” with the highly controversial and politicized research topic of “evolved behavioral sex differences.” This conflation is not only unnecessary, but it further has the capacity to impede our ability to best understand what it means to be human.

Darwin’s ideas, now well over a century old, have barely begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding what it means to be human. How about we take politics out of the picture so that we can use the behavioral sciences to best advance the human condition?

Note: Part of the content of this blog post is being used in preparation for a panel on the study of sexuality that I will give (along with Michael Bailey and Catherine Salmon) on Friday, January 10 at the second biannual Heterodox Psychology Conference in Orange, CA. Interested in multiple perspectives in psychology? Like the idea of southern California in January? Hope to see you there! (More Information on the conference is here)