Comments on: Evo psych error roundup

By: aaronsw

aaronsw — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:28:18 +0000

I didn't mean to question the claim; I just thought it would be interesting to see a study on the topic. Human Universals is a somewhat sketchy book, rather outside the social anthropology mainstream.

By: Jamie McCarthy

Jamie McCarthy — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:15:30 +0000

It’s indisputable that “mothers are more likely to take care of the children than fathers … across the vast majority of cultures.” I mean, I guess you could try to dispute it, feel free to start presenting evidence, but it’s so well-established that your even questioning it makes me question your objectivity.

If you really need a citation, Pinker cites D.E. Brown, “Human Universals,” 1991 (on p. 346 of “The Blank Slate”)… but c’mon.

Didn’t you even grant this point already? Look back at your Exhibit A. “your mother’s mother will spend more time caring for you than your father’s mother… the data does indeed seem to bear this out.” You suggest this might not have anything to do with evolution because “kids are usually primarily raised by their mothers”… um, yes. Precisely. Across the vast majority of cultures. Now why would that be?

By: aaronsw

aaronsw — Tue, 22 May 2007 02:41:06 +0000

I think evo psych is bad science with good PR; it's nothing personal and I wouldn't really call it a vendetta. I don't think a couple bad studies should discount the field and never said so. If you want to see why the field is bogus, there are many, many good books and articles on the subject. This post was simply criticizing three particular studies. I happened to group them together because I learned about them around the same time and they were all evo psych studies.

The claim in A is not simply something I came up with (nor is its critique). As the linked-to article notes, it is "the primary case study that Cox [the evo psych author under review] offers in exploring the potential usefulness of an evolutionary approach". Similarly, I heard the argument in Psych 101 at Stanford and believe I saw it in Pinker's textbook. I haven't done a careful study, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in many or most of the relevant introductions, as C is.

As for your contention that "mothers are more likely to take care of the children than fathers ... across the vast majority of cultures", could you please provide a citation? The anthropological evidence I've seen finds that while many cultures have a gender-based division of labor, the patterns for which gender gets assigned which task are much less strong.

By: Andrey Fedorov

Andrey Fedorov — Sat, 19 May 2007 07:06:11 +0000

Wow, it seems like you almost have a personal vendetta against evo psych, Aaron... just because two studies (B,C) were badly conducted doesn't mean one should discount the entire field.

And I'm not sure what exactly the point of (A) is ... "One common (and characteristically offensive) claim among evopsychers is that your mother's mother will spend more time caring for you than your father's mother"

You're arguing against what you came up with as "one common claim"? Really? That's funny, from all I've heard of evo psych, I never heard that claim, but how about the common claim that mothers are more likely to take care of the children than fathers, who are more likely to go out and "provide for the family"? Why is this consistent across the vast majority of cultures?