Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Editions of Buss

I think there are the following editions of Buss, Evolutionary Psychology: the New Science of the Mind.

• First edition c1999 ISBN 0205193587
• Second edition c2004 ISBN 0205370713
• Third edition 2008 ISBN 0205483380 ISBN 9780205483389 ISBN 020569439X ISBN 9780205694396 ISBN 9780205694396
• Fourth edition 2012 ISBN: 0205002781 ISBN 9780205002788

It would be useful for the reader if we would stick to one of these, and I suggest Third Edition. With page numbers, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the 2011 edition referred to? Is it a reprint of the Third? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 and 2012 editions are the same. This 4th Ed. was actually available in 2011, but the copyright date inside the book says 2012. Publishers messing with the publication date. Obviously, the 4th edition is the most current -- should use this when adding new material, when possible. Memills (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If the publishers say 2012, it's 2012. Can we then stick to 4th and can you add all the page numbers please, and check that we are only giving one ISBN, the one where the page numbers are correct. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Memills (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tinbergen's questions and OR

I am making no sense at all of the table, to find out whether it is originated by Tinbergen, by Nesse, who copyright might reside with etc. The article on Tinbergen's four questions carries the same table, unsourced and doesn't distinguish clearly between Tinbergen's own thought and the subsequent use made of it. I'm going to post on WikiProject Biology for help, as this needs unpacking. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The ideas are Tinbergen's, which are just summarized in table format by Nesse. The table here is not a direct replication of the Nesse table. However, I'm sure he would give permission to place his table in the public domain. Memills (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're sure but that's not sufficient. We mustn't plagiarise Nesse and we should make clear what is Nesse and what is Tinbergen. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not plagiarizing if Nesse is used as a reference, and not a copyright violation if the table isn't copied verbatim (it isn't). Don't think it is needed, but if was preferable to use Nesse's original table, I know Nesse on a professional level and could contact him to ask him to put his table in the public domain. Memills (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding copyright violation is extremely important so I am getting advice on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you have against this table. This is the second time you have deleted it. As I noted above, the table is not a copyvio. It is based on standard info found in the majority of behavioral ecology, ethology, and evolutionary psychology textbooks. However, again, if for some reason you would prefer the original table by Nesse here instead, just let me know. Or, we can use this authoritative reference. Memills (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Useful source

David Sloan Wilson, "Evolution, morality, and human potential" in Steven J. Scher and Frederick Rauscher (eds.) Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative Approaches. Any objections? He distinguishes "narrow" EP of Tooby, Cosmides and Buss, from EP more generally. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the "narrow" (vs. what?) distinction is valid or useful. EP is a very broad field -- although Tooby and Cosmides are important figures in the field, for most EPers there are no distinctly separate "schools," although there is typical variation in opinions about specific ideas / theories / hypotheses. Also, D. S. Wilson is a pretty controversial figure in evolutionary biology / psychology in that he takes group selection seriously. Most in the field disagree (groups don't replicate in the way that genes do). Dual inheritance theory is more generally accepted. Memills (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but your own critique is neither here nor there for this article. (Until you publish it in a journal.) Controversial, maybe, but I'm seeing an argument within scholarship that ought to be neutrally reflected here, not a fringe theory. It's well written too. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just passin along the facts about the majority perspective of evolutionary biologists, mam. Not my opinion. See, in particular, the distinction between replicators and vehicles as well the biologist Jerry Coyne's review of one of D. S. Wilson's books, wherein he takes him to task re group selection:

"Group selection isn’t widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it’s not an efficient way to select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters. Further, we simply have little evidence that selection on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for reciprocal support, could have made us prosocial.

These reasons explain why only a few biologists, like Wilson and E. O. Wilson (no relation), advocate group selection as the evolutionary source of cooperation."

Memills (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• The same distinction between narrow/Broad EP is made by Rauscher and Scher themselves (in fact the entire book is motivated by the distinction) and by Laland and Brown in their widely acclaimed book (they refer to "narrow EP" as "the Sta. Cruz school of EP"). Whether or not Sloan is promoting a minority viewpoint on group selection is utterly irrelevant for the question of narrow/broad EP. Similarly Memills opinion on whether it is a good distinction to make is irrelevant - what matters is that many authors do make the distinction.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They can't even get the university correct. Their "Santa Cruz school of EP" is actually UC Santa Barbara. Again, the quote above re group selection is not my opinion, but simply to note that group selection is a minority perspective in evol bio. And, even for those who believe group selection does occur, they stipulate that it does so only under fairly restrictive conditions (e.g., when the personal benefits to be altruistic to the group are greater than the personal benefits to act in one's self-interests). Memills (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Methods"?

In the section on Buss's "methods" of working out if something is an adaptation or not. I looked at this to see if the ugly bold type could be lost. But these aren't methods are they? They don't look like any scientific research methods you will find in the textbooks. "Criteria" is the correct word, isn't it? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I've changed the word "methods" to "strategies." Also, changed the bold type to italic. Memills (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

section possibly lacking neutrality

Under the "Initial response" section there are some lines that seems very dogmatic in tone, and I'm wondering if it sohuld be worded in such a way.

"For example, eugenics and social darwinism were political philosophies of the early 20th Century that were largely based on the naturalistic fallacy -- the erroneous idea that what is necessarily implies what ought."

I'm not saying I agree with those things, but saying they are wrong with such certainty doesn't seem very neutral to me; it would make more sense to say that it is widely accepted that they are wrong. Of course, I may be reading it wrong and missing what was actually meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.139.223 (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor edits improve neutrality. Eugenics and Social Darwinism are largely of historical interest now -- extremely few academics endorse these political philosophies today. Memills (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "naturalist fallacy" is widely known as a fallacy - we are invoking a well-known principle, it is not WP that is saying it is a "fallacy." Can anyone find any citation from a significant philosopher claiming that what is necessary is also what is ought? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolved human traits-- all or some are evolutionarily adaptive?

" It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations, that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection."

Should it not be how, and not which?

Isn't the entirety of a human, psychological traits included -- a product of evolved adaptation? Might I ask also what the alternative would be if it is not evolved adaptations? Cheers. Averylongdream (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We also have vestigial traits or traits that get thrown up on the sputum of the genetic sea that are survival-neutral or not harmful enough to be strongly selected against. Or a trait could become widespread by virtue of being on the same gene as a beneficial trait. These are incidental rather than functional products of natural or sexual selection. There is also the whole nature/nurture question - is "likes red" selected for, or is "has a favorite colour" selected for, with red being the culturally determined choice? Adaptationism probably says it better.

Could we change the second sentence to avoid this confusion? FiveColourMap (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the problem is that the sentence implies that everything that is 'evolved' is 'functional' - a logical error that evolutionary psychology often seems to fall into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What you both say makes sense, my only concern now is that now it reads as though some traits are evolved, and the others are due to some other mysterious force. Is there a way to rephrase it to avoid this confusion? Averylongdream (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We could mostly drop the second and third sentences of the first paragraph, moving the last sentence up. This puts the link to psychological adaptation right at the top, which is far more useful in this context than the links to natural/sexual selection. The third sentence just recapitulates evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior results from psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments. Evolutionary psychology applies the adaptationist model to psychology, arguing that the mind has a modular structure similar to that of the body, with different modular adaptations serving different functions.

Copy that into the article if you like it, or make a counterproposal if I have missed anything important. FiveColourMap (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The question posed at the outset of this section is discussed in detail in the article itself. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology#Products_of_evolution:_adaptations.2C_exaptations.2C_byproducts.2C_and_random_variation

So, yes, one important objective of EP is to identify which traits are psychological adaptations, and which traits are not. Although this is sometimes misunderstood, those in the field are well aware that many traits are not adaptations. Memills (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I find a lot of confusion in the above discussion. Everything about humans, our bodies, minds, behaviour, has evolved. The same is true for an ash tree; every characteristic it has, has evolved. And some of the things that are important to our lives as humans are also important for ash trees: we can't stand extreme heat or cold, prolonged immersion or drought, exposure to chemicals or radiation. These are evolved human traits that all scientists, social scientists and artists who examine the human condition have to bear in mind. But I think the evolved human traits that most interest social scientists in general and those who promote or critique EP in particular, are those traits that we don't share with ash trees, and don't even share with close relatives like chimps, bonobos or gorillas. Upright stature, opposable thumb, long childhood dependence, menstrual cycle and menopause... there is plenty to understand. Are all of these "adaptive"? That's still being discussed. What about psychological traits that are unique to humans? Before discussing which are adaptive, it would be useful to identify those traits. I don't think there is even consensus on that. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Constructive and thoughtful. I would add, that natural selection can act on anything, not just heritable traits. This was anthropologist Julian Steward's basic claim in the 1930s and it has long had a major place in anthropology, most intro textbooks will say in the first or second chapter than one view of culture is as an adaptation, it is just extrasomatic i.e. learned rather than inherited. but natural selection still acts on it, and learned behaviors (in a word, "culture") that are non-adaptive will not survive; adaptive ones will. This is really old-hat in cultural anthropology and one reason why so few anthropologists have given EP much attention. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is so exciting. Humans as a learning species = humans as an evolved species. I don't fully have my head round it yet, but will try and read up. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two dimensions: the first is, looking at how specific learned behaviors are the product of natural selection. If you are interested in reading an entire book, the classic case-study is Roy Rappaport's Pigs for the Ancestors, but almost any book by Marvin Harris consists of very accessible popular essays that reflect this view. I think there is a collection of Julian Steward's Theory of Culture Change which is more technical (like Rappaport) but the source for the ideas. The second question is how did a distinctively human capacity for learning evolve in the first place. The best book I know of on this is Terrance Deacon's phenomenal The Symbolic Species which is very technical but amazing. If a book is too much, look at the journal Current Anthropology - in the 1960s (1969?) Ralph Holloway wrote an article called "Culture: a Human Domain" which I think you would like. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest the following re-write: It seeks to examine the extent to which human psychology is evolved as a product of natural or sexual selection? I think this would be better because it points the reader away from the idea of atomic psychology and gene-psychology correspondence (e.g. there is a gene for being happy-go-lucky, there is a gene for fear of dogs) and towards the debate in reality about how much of our psychology is genetically determined. I think "traits" is bad in an overview, because evolutionary psychology does not restrict itself to anything narrower than psychology as a whole.--FormerIP (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The article Adaptations, Exaptations, and Spandrels is a good place for further exploration of this topic. Also George_C._Williams 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection covered this material.

No one in EP argues for genetic determinism; rather EP is fully nature-nurture interactionist. To ask whether something is due to nature or nurture is asking the wrong question (see my blog post re this). The terms adaptation, byproduct and random variations have particular technical meanings. The belly button is a byproduct, but that doesn't mean that it is not too, ultimately, a product of evolution. And, that is why a section heading in this article is titled: "Products of evolution: adaptations, exaptations, byproducts, and random variation."

The sentence in the intro is accurate: "It [EP] seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection." Note the term functional, which is a key part of the sentence. Adaptations have a function, while byproducts and random variation generally do not or did not in ancestral environments. For example, language acquisition by toddlers is a psychological adaptation, while reading and writing are byproducts (as evidenced by the fact that the former is done virtually without instruction, while the latter requires extensive training). Memills (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The word "functional" does make a difference, that's true. But what it does is produce a poor definition of "evolved adaptations" IMO. Vestigial genetic information is evolved, in that is has arisen during a history of selection, in just the same way as any other genetic information.

I'm a little confused that you seem to agree that EP does not set out to sift genetically determined traits from those which are not (and you've even blogged about it). It's not just a question of technical accuracy (which, like I say, I don't think your preferred version has), but also about what choice of wording provides the most conceptually accurate picture. --FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Function (and lack thereof, respectively) is the the defining difference between an adaptation (e.g., language) and a byproduct (such as a "vestigial genetic information" -- e.g., the appendix -- assuming it was functional only in the distant past). Both are produced by the interaction of genes and environment. It is conceptually misleading and inaccurate to suggest that some traits are genetic while others are environmental. As noted in my blog post, as well as this one by a colleague, the question to ask is not whether is it nature or nurture, but rather whether a trait is likely to be an adaptation or not. And, if it is, is it generally obligate or facultative (which is about a close as we can get to a useful nature vs. nurture distinction). Memills (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think functionality is crucial. From what I have read, EP is often most controversial when it claims that a behavior that some people consider disfunctional was once functional (which some people interpret, rightly or wrongly, to mean: might still be functional). I think another crucial issue is universality. A ehavior or behavioral disposition that evolved a million years ago is presumably shared by all humans; conversely, if a behavior is shared by all humans, it may likely be an evolved trait. I think another source of controversy is whn some people (rightly or wrongly) believe that EP is claiming that a certain behavior or behavioral disposition is universal, and some people believe that it is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that EP focuses on putative underlying emotional / motivational / cognitive psychological adaptations, and much less so on overt behavior. Because behavior is such a complex interaction of nature (psychological adaptations) and nurture (environment/culture), a psychological adaptation (such as language acquisition) can lead to great diversity in behavior (such as the specific language spoken in a given culture). A psychological adaptation (unlike a byproduct or random variation) should show evidence of species universality, mechanism reliability, adaptive functionality, and complexity. Memills (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Memills, you seem to be to be referencing concepts that ought to go against the current wording in order to defend it. Obviously, all aspects of human psychology are informed both genetically and environmentally. This is uncontroversial. So why are you supporting wording that suggests that some psychological traits are (note: "are" - not even "the result of" or "related to") evolutionary adaptations (whereas some, presumably, are not)? This is the wrong dividing line. Your supposition that adaptations can refer only to recent adaptations is wrong, IMO. For the latter, we say "recent adaptations". But I don't think that makes a difference because, even in that case, the sentence does not give an accurate description of EP. Its job is not simply to sort recent adaptations from distant ones.--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of these ideas are subtle and complex. However, the distinction between traits that are adaptations (e.g., the umbilical cord) and those that are not (e.g., the belly button) is a foundational idea in evolutionary science. I have provided references that explore some of these distinctions in more detail, and I would suggest that you read them to help to clarify some of the issues under discussion here. Again, see the article Adaptations, Exaptations, and Spandrels as well George_C._Williams 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection which is a classic. Also, any introductory evolutionary psychology textbook covers these concepts (e.g., Buss, 'Evolutionary Psychology,' 2012). Memills (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Memills, you are trying to get the article to reflect the EP that you teach. Of course you try to teach the most coherent and up to date version of EP. But the article can't do that; it has to reflect EP as a whole. If you want to carry on contributing to Wikipedia, you will have to distinguish between User:Memills and Professor Memills. I appreciate that isn't easy. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith, please AGF. My goal is not to present my own OR or POV. It is to help to improve the article so that it accurately represents the current theories and empirical findings of the discipline (including divergent hypotheses and perspectives within it). Many folks first arrive here with a very meager background or training in EP, and have some preconceptions or misunderstandings about EP. As always, I encourage such folks to read up on the current literature, or, at minimum, have ready access to a current evolutionary psychology textbook. And, again, that is why I routinely offer 'suggestions for additional reading' and provide refs. I most encourage others to do so too. Memills (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, sorry if it didn't come out like that. In terms of what editors have or haven't read, well I haven't read a lot about EP as such, but I have read a lot of other very relevant stuff. At the moment, I am not seeing EP as having a model of humans as a learning species. What are we evolved to do? We're evolved to walk upright, use our thumbs, use tools etc. etc. Above all else, we're evolved to learn. And that presents a methodological difficulty that isn't there when a biologist is looking at the behaviour of an earthworm. Trying to put it simply, it is in our nature to nurture. I could go on and probably will. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is great that you are well read in general, and have an interest in EP. A bit more reading of EP may surprise you.

This comes as a surprise to those with a passing familiarity with EP: Learning is actually a core interest of EP. But, with a special twist, one that differentiates EP from traditional behaviorism / social learning theory / social constructionism (which assume that learning is derived from a "general purpose, domain general learning mechanism"). In contrast, EP suggests that learning is not general purpose and domain general, and it could not be (due to the frame problem, but, instead learning is based on a multitude of evolved adaptations -- special-purpose cognitive information processing mechanisms, each specialized to solve particular types of problems (the Wason selection task is the classic example).

Again, for example, humans presumably have an evolved language acquisition device (LAD) that makes learning a language easy for toddlers. But reading and writing are not adaptations, and so these are so hard to learn.

Don't know if you have read Pinker's The Blank Slate, but it is a good intro to this type of thinking, and you might find an interesting read. Memills (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're discussing the lead, right? What I find to be missing is the way in which this school interacts with the other schools of thought in psychology. Is it taught and studied as a completely separate branch? Does it have some synergy with other types of explanatory scheme? One can't really grasp the context and power of the field without comparing it with the alternatives.

Another point. There was a study publicised recently which suggested that there are natural limits to traits such as memory and concentration. So, if you're too strong in these areas, your mind will tend to be dysfunctional in some ways, like the absent-minded professor. So, we forget things and get distracted to help us keep some balance in our thinking. The key phrase would be trade-offs but I'm not finding this in the article - only in the title of one of the sources.

Warden (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the lead, EP is becoming increasingly integrated into the the larger field of psychology, and, adaptationist informed articles are regularly appearing now in top psychological science publications. Those working in the field of EP suggest (also noted in the lead) that eventually EP will no longer be a "sub-field" but rather will be integrated into the larger discipline, and serve as a foundational meta-theory that integrates all social sciences; much as evolutionary theory (as related to understanding the bodies of organisms) has done for the biological sciences.

EP is well aware of cost-benefit trade-offs, and the resulting evolutionary stable strategies (ESS). I don't think this merits mention in the lead (?), however, perhaps more should be added to the article re this. Memills (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head over the point of this conversation. Obviously all of our physical characteristics (including cerebral structures) are products of natural selection, but that hardly means that all human psychological traits are thereby products of natural selection. I mean, to take the obvious case, we are obviously evolved to use language (there is clear survival/breeding advantage in language use among humans), but we can't be said to have evolved to use any particular language, or to use language in any particular way. This conversation has a lot of hand-waving going on over the concept of 'psychological traits' - is the fact that I don't like Jello a 'psychological trait' that has evolved for some specific function? How many millions of humans had to die off to affix that antipathy for Jello in the human genome? 'Natural selection' is a narrow concept, let's not exaggerate it.

However, if you want to clarificatory rewrite on that line, try this: "It seeks to discover the evolutionary origins of various aspects of human psychology." Leave the 'natural and sexual selection' aspects out of it for the lead and cover them in the body. This phrasing doesn't make any particular assertions about anything questionable. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sensible summary and suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A psychological adaptation for a preference for sugary foods does not a preference for jello make.  :-) Here is where a psychological adaptation does not equal behavior, which can be influenced by environmental/developmental situations. Just like a child locked in a closet from age 1 - 6 will never learn a language, despite it being an adaptation. Under typical situations, most folks will like jello, given its high sugar content.

Again, I prefer the current phrase, which I see as more accurate an informative: "It [EP] seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection." EP is generally only secondarily interested in studying functions that are not putative psychological adaptations (such as why someone does or does not like jello), and this sentence makes that clear. Memills (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, children who miss the language acquisition stage can and do learn language; what they end being unable to master is the full range of grammatical constructions. It's similar to what happens to adults who learn a second language (who tend to import grammar constructs from their native tongue), only more extreme. But that's a quibble.

I'm not strongly opposed to your preferred version, but I do think it's a bit misleading on the following points:

• The words 'trait' and 'adaptation' have distinctly different meanings in psychology and evolutionary biology, and that distinction is being glossed over that in a way that is unduly suggestive. Radio stations and cars both have transmissions, but one is not interchangeable with the other. This phrasing seems to suggest that mental traits and physical traits are interchangeable, and that biological and psychological adaptation are functions of the same process.
• Natural/sexual selection is not 'functional' in the normal sense of the term. that's a product of teleological thinking, which assumes that the outcome is implicit in the origin. Genetic change is opportunistic, not strategic.

I don't want to say that phrase is wrong, but (to borrow language from a different science) it has a noticeable redshift towards a particular viewpoint that I don't think captures the scholarly norm. --Ludwigs2 12:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your well articulated comment.

Here is the sentence in question: EP " ...seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection."

• Is an "adaptation" a "trait" of an organism? Adaptationists would say "yes." Dictionary.com defines "trait" as: "a distinguishing characteristic or quality, especially of one's personal nature" -- an adaptation fits that description. Are *all* traits adaptations? No. (Again, to pick on the belly button -- no pun intended: the belly button is a trait, but it is not an adaptation. That is why EP "seeks to identify which psychological traits are evolved adaptations" and which are not. Language acquisition ability of toddlers is an adaptation; "writing acquisition" ability is not.
• Are "biological" ("physiological"?) and "psychological" adaptations products of natural and sexual selection? Again, evolutionists would say "yes" -- and, in fact that is the foundational premise of EP. Not only does the body have traits that are evolved adaptations, so does the mind/brain. Again, the nature (biology) vs. nurture (psychology) distinction is deeply misleading and results in unproductive thinking, and should be avoided. A better distinction is the degree to which an adaptation is generally obligate given typical environmental variation (say, the nose) or more facultative given typical environmental variation (tanning of the skin with exposure to sunlight).

Re the comment: "Natural/sexual selection is not 'functional' in the normal sense of the term. that's a product of teleological thinking, which assumes that the outcome is implicit in the origin." Correct in the sense that evolution has no goal or anticipated outcome -- evolutionists agree. However, biological evolution is indeed 'functional' in that it reliability produces complexity in the form of adaptations (a pretty special effect, given the universal increase in overall entropy). The specific outcomes of evolution cannot be predicted in advance, given random mutations and a blind walk through the adaptive landscape (although it is impressive the the eye has evolved independently in several species).

So the sentence accurately describes one of the foundational goals of EP: it "...seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection." Memills (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm almost pleased with the wording now.

I just wanted to get clarification on a few of the points that were brought up. In this umbilical cord/belly button example, for instance. I would argue that even the belly button is a product of natural selection because if somehow having a belly button prevented generations from mating, it would have never come into existence. As I mentioned earlier, a trait will remain unless that trait is maladaptive enough to prevent mating. I also never meant for this argument to get into nurture vs. nature, but I guess it went that direction either way. About the Jello-liking example. Even that is partially evolution. You don't see many humans drinking gasoline. That's because we didnt coevolve alongside it for sustenance. It's more complicated than that, but I think its a valid point. If you don't like Jello its because that combination of chemicals on your tongue (or similar chemicals) simply served no adaptational advantage to your ancestors. Could we potentially revise it further? Right now it reads: It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection." I would still like to see an alternate posed. Its like saying I have ten jellybeans, five are red. But what color are the other five. Perhaps something along the lines of "It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations - that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection, as opposed to Exaptation By-Product Random Noise? Still seems like there is something to be desired. Averylongdream (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Memills' posture of ownership of this article

Memills has recently made reverts to constructive, well referenced edits to the article, that seek to clarify key issues and concepts. By his own concession, Memills used false justifications for his reverts - such as claiming the edits were 'original research' or 'controversial'. Against the background of Memills' other input to this article, my sense is that these reverts constitute another example of his posture of ownership of this article. For anyone unfamiliar with the problem of ownership, please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I suggest that if Memills continues the posture of reverting edits that are well referenced and relevant, other contributors that wish to see this article prosper and unbiasedly reflect the subtlety of concepts involved, might get back in touch with an administrator like Sandstein to request that Memills be reminded of wiki policy, and if necessary blocked from editing the article for a period of time. Please contribute thoughts to this question over the openness of the article. Many thanks. DMSchneider (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I noted here: "(This issue was) Discussed previously on Talk page. Pls discuss again there first." DmSchneider did not take it to the Talk page, but ignored my request and restored his edits again. I again asked that the issue be discussed on the Talk page here: "As I suggested, take to Talk page. Maybe not OR, but perhaps you are the ghost of David M. Schneider?"

Specifically, the paper by Maximilian Holland, which is an unpublished doctoral dissertation, was previously discussed on these Talk pages. Those discussions were prompted by Holland himself modifying this page, as well as the Inclusive fitness page. His edits were ultimately reverted due to concerns about OR and because the hypotheses were stated as fact, and that he had a conflict of interest.

If the issue of inclusive fitness is to be revisited -- that's fine by me. However, it would be helpful to first review previous discussion on the Talk pages here, as well as the Talk pages for Inclusive fitness.

In general, evolutionary biologists/psychologists disagree with some cultural anthropologists' (and Holland's) assertion that purely cultural factors determine identification of kin. Instead evolutionary biologists/psychologists suggest that that genetic kin can often also be identified by phenotypic resemblance, body scent, as well as other factors that have biological components. Memills (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I address these points in the section below.DMSchneider (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While I consider it polite in the course of BRD for the reverting editor to start the discussion on the talk page it definitely behooves the bold editor who was reverted to go there rather than initiate an edit war. Ownership issues are best addressed via an RfC/U. Jojalozzo 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DMSchneider's edits / additions re inclusive fitness

If DMSchneider would like to re-open a discussion of these issues related to inclusive fitness here on the Talk page, that, again, is fine by me. A good start would be for him to add his proposed insertions/edits here to open the discussion. Aw, heck, I'll do it for him.

DMSchneider deleted most of this paragraph (which actually included a reference to Holland):

Psychological adaptations related to interactions with kin are facultative. Although it is generally true that humans tend to be more altruistic toward their kin than toward non-kin, there may be exceptions. Specific types of behavioral output are dependent on the interaction of both genetic and environmental influences. For example, John Bowlby and others have noted that patterns of attachment to others are dependent on early developmental experiences with caregivers. In any specific instance, the manifestation of emotional bonds into altruistic behaviour depends on early bonding experiences, and symbolic, economic and other cultural factors, which may or may not always coincide with consanguinity.

DMSchneider added the following paras:

{quote|In his original papers on inclusive fitness theory, Hamilton pointed out a sufficiently high relatedness to favour altruistic behaviours could accrue in two ways — kin discrimination or limited dispersal ( Hamilton, 1964, 1971,1972, 1975). There is a huge theoretical literature on the possible role of limited dispersal reviewed by Platt & Bever (2009) and West et al. (2002a), as well as experimental evolution tests of these models (Diggle et al., 2007; Griffin et al., 2004; Kümmerli et al., 2009 ). However, despite this, it is still sometimes claimed that kin selection requires kin discrimination (Oates & Wilson, 2001; Silk, 2002 ). Furthermore, a large number of authors appear to have implicitly or explicitly assumed that kin discrimination is the only mechanism by which altruistic behaviours can be directed towards relatives... [T]here is a huge industry of papers reinventing limited dispersal as an explanation for cooperation. The mistakes in these areas seem to stem from the incorrect assumption that kin selection or indirect fitness benefits require kin discrimination (misconception 5), despite the fact that Hamilton pointed out the potential role of limited dispersal in his earliest papers on inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton, 1964; Hamilton, 1971; Hamilton, 1972; Hamilton, 1975). (West et al. 2010, p.243 and supplement)}}

To the extent that cues based on co-residence and familiarity play the major role in mediating social ties and cooperation (as they do for social mammals and primates), it may not be necessary to invoke active discrimination of relatedness as the main proximate mechanism. Hamilton himself had this to say on the point:

we do not expect anything describable as an innate kin recognition adaptation, used for social behaviour other than mating (Hamilton 1987, 425)

Following this line of argument, a synthesis has been made between inclusive fitness theory, psychological attachment theory and cultural anthropology's findings on human kinship patterns, which resolves the apparent lack of compatibility between the biological and cultural perspectives on human social behaviour. In this view, human bonding and social cooperation in many societies often continues to correlate with genetic relatedness, due to the fact that in most societies, circumstances usually place genetic relatives in close proximity from the earliest developmental stages. But the key proximate mechanisms - familiarity, nurture, bonding and cooperation - are non-deterministic in relation to genetic relatedness; in particular symbolic, historical, economic or other circumstances, certain societies may display patterns of social kinship that do not necessarily closely coincide with genetic relatedness. Inclusive fitness theory is compatible with both patterns.

The issue is whether these changes accurately represent the perspectives of most evolutionary biologists/psychologists (not just those of cultural anthropologists). While the evidence for the perspectives on both sides of the debate should be presented, it should be made clear what is the consensus of opinion of those in the fields of evolutionary biology and psychology, given that that is the topic of this article. Again, most adaptationists would suggest that there are additional non-cultural, biological kin-detection mechanisms that also help determine kin from non-kin (e.g., phenotypic matching, body scent, etc.). Inclusive fitness theory would of course state that non-cultural factors must be at play in non-human species (which do not have culture) to accurately identify genetic kin from non-kin.

See in particular The architecture of human kin detection, by Liberman, Tooby and Cosmides. Full text PDF is here. Also see The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory. Memills (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The points made in this edit are not primarily about 'Holland's thesis' they are rather about important debates and interpretation of inclusive fitness theory which have bearing on how it can be applied to humans more or less parsimoniously. The theory and its relevance to humans' evolved behaviours is a central thread of EP of course.

The inclusive fitness (and kin selection) pages already reflect the general points over how the theory relates to mechanisms mediating altruism. The points made in the EP edit are very much in line with the position set out in those articles: that the respected theorists (Hamilton, Grafen, Dawkins, Frank, West and others) have long been clear about the relative parsimony of context & location based mechanisms relative to 'innate kin recognition adaptations'. Those pages have relevant quotes from the key theorists. This page here should surely reflect that theoretical position, in a shortened form if necessary.

The theory pages, and related articles make it clear that context-based mediation of social bonding and cooperation is both more parsimonious in relation to inclusive fitness theory, and much more strongly supported by the full body of experimental data from mammals & primates (the long literature in the tradition of Sherman & Holmes and others) in contrast to hypothesized 'innate kin recognition adaptations' (to use Hamilton's phrase). This aspect is in no way controversial with biological theorists, and indeed 'reflects the consensus'.

On the subsidiary matter of Holland's thesis - it demonstrates how this consensus on IFT as understood by biology theorists is indeed compatible with human social behaviour, universally across cultures. It is published according to wiki definitions - it does not at all assert that purely cultural factors determine identification of kin - that is an inaccurate characterisation. On the contrary, it asserts that biological theory should in principle be, and indeed is applicable to humans and non-humans alike, and that humans' social cooperation behaviours have indeed been shaped by evolution for inclusive fitness and that their form matches predictions/interpretations of inclusive fitness theory. In other words it strongly demonstrates both that and how IFT is indeed applicable to humans. One thus cannot characterise it to be an argument promoting 'purely cultural factors'! Perhaps your concern is that it interprets inclusive fitness theory in a way that even cultural anthropologists can have no objection to? If so, this is deeply worrying.

Perhaps some editors may wish to include additional examples of approaches that have a non-consensus interpretation of the theory regarding which possible mechanisms might mediate social behaviours, and are non-universal in respect of the evidence from across all human cultures. But we should use great caution with this - for readers it must be clearly preceded by the point that 'innate kin recognition adaptations' for social behaviour are not predicted by the evolutionary theory, as Hamilton makes clear. Since EP is about evolved adaptations that characterize the human species as a whole, and decidedly not about culturally-specific practices/values, this article should probably include only research that has been demonstrated as being compatible with a wide-range of cross-cultural data from around the world, not just a few select cultures. If we cannot do this, then those examples of research we do give should clearly be noted as being demonstrated only in specific cultures and and not universally demonstrated. For example, a difficulty with much of the 'face-similarity' research is that it is not shown to be universal across cultures, so it may only demonstrate cultural values - something that rigorous EP clearly distinguishes from universal evolved traits of the human species.

On the procedural side - the page discussing 'ownership' problems makes it clear that 'discussing things on the talk' page cannot be used as a diversionary tactic to prevent edits to the main article. Constructive, well-referenced editing which illuminates the key issues of the topic and summarizes the consensus theoretical position of Hamilton et al. should be encouraged, and it should certainly not be shot down for false reasons of 'controversial' or 'Original Research'. I am glad to see that as of this time Memills has not attempted to revert the edit again, and I hope Memills can come round to seeing the value of this edit.- DMSchneider (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My concern with the edits/additions is exemplified by this sentence in particular:

"Following this line of argument, a synthesis[6] has been made between inclusive fitness theory, psychological attachment theory and cultural anthropology's findings on human kinship patterns..."

The reference for this synthesis is the Holland doctoral dissertation, which is unpublished. A "synthesis" has been proposed (by Holland) -- it has not been confirmed or even published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is a proposal that is still under intense investigation and debate. Again, non-human animals have kin-detection devices that are wholly non-cultural, and most adaptationists believe that to be the case for humans as well.

Given the referencing of Holland, and because of the problems with Holland's previous edits here and elsewhere, I would ask DMSchneider to state here that he is not in fact Holland using DMSchneider as a sockpuppet account. Also, the fact that the account apparently is named after David M. Schneider, a cultural anthropologist who believed that kinship was purely culturally constructed, also raises some concerns that this topic is being approached by DMSchneider primarily from a cultural anthropology perspective. Again, that perspective should be noted, but it not should turn into an in-depth debate in this article subtopic, it should not be suggested that Holland's "synthesis" is the final word, and it should not crowd out adaptationist perspectives and research on kinship recognition that propose competing explanations. Memills (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a sockpuppet of Holland, I am a different individual, and have never met Holland. I came across Holland's thesis through google scholar following it's appearance in an online research depositary last year, and also checked that it corresponded with the published version available in digital form from the British library. Memills continues to claim that Holland's thesis is 'not published' - this is categorically wrong according to WP definitions, as Memills surely knows. A finished, accepted and approved PhD thesis such as Holland's is unambigously counted as 'published' according to these guidelines. The original version is available as a scanned PDF from the British Library, as mentioned. It is entirely disingenuous of Memills to attempt to cast doubt on the significance of the work by continuing to suggest that it is unpublished. I trust that this clarification will encourage him to proceed in good faith and concede that the work is indeed published.

I consider Holland's thesis to be a significant contribution to understanding the biological influence on human social behaviour, and unusually non-partisan in its surveys of the biological theory as well as data on social mammals and primates, cultural anthropology's empirical findings on humans, and psychological attachment theory (which of course covers both primates and humans). Since seeing Memills reference to the discussion he had with Holland previously, I have looked back at that discussion, and it appears that Holland was effectively bullied into not pursuing his edits at that time. It unfortunate that Memills' entrenched perspective did not allow him to see the significance and unifying value of Holland's work, which apart from anything else, is the most significant application of Inclusive fitness theory to humans to date. As such it deserves to be celebrated by biologists, rather than bullied into hiding by a small minority.

Schneider did not claim that human social ties (what he called 'diffuse enduring solidarity') were purely cultural. He did however ask that any putative geneological basis to social ties should be investigated, illuminated and demonstrated (in a manner which is cross-culturally applicable), rather than unexaminedly assumed, as earlier generations of anthropologists had done. He left open the question of what the role of biological influences might be. I don't imagine Memills has read Schneider or taken his work as seriously as it warrants. It single-handedly transformed the study of social ties in anthropology. Holland's thesis is all the more remarkable in that it does full justice to Schneider's concerns whilst it also accurately reflects a rigorous interpretation of inclusive fitness theory.

On Memills other points - Holland's work is indeed a synthesis - and it has been published. This is what is meant by the sentence "a synthesis has been made". It has self evidently been peer reviewed and accepted - otherwise it would not have been approved by Holland's university (which was LSE, the same place Hamilton did his PhD work). There thus can be no reasonable objection to the sentence "a synthesis has been made between IFT..."(etc).

Again - if Memills wishes to also include in this section 'competing' approaches to applying IFT to humans, based on the interpretation that 'innate kin recognition adaptations' are in some way predicted by the theory (although Hamilton makes clear that this is not the case), there may be some merit in doing so, so long as this theoretical dissonance is made clear. But to the extent that Holland's approach both rigorously applies IFT universally to a vast body of human data (the ethnographic record), and at the same time is welcomed by socio/cultural anthropologists, it should be prominent here. Surely this is exactly the sort of successful general application of biological theory that EP seeks to achieve.

Memills seems to misunderstand what a contextually-cued proximate mechanism is, in writing "non-human animals have kin-detection devices that are wholly non-cultural". No one is claiming that social mammals have 'cultural' kin detection devices. Nor is it being claimed that kin-detection mechanisms cannot exist (there is significant selection pressure for avoiding inbreeding with close relatives, for example) - why Hamilton says - "we do not expect anything describable as an innate kin recognition adaptation, used for social behaviour other than mating". The question for interpreting IFT is whether the social behaviours of humans (and other primates/social mammals) is predicted to be governed by circumstantial (e.g. location-based) cues - to which the answer is yes, as Hamilton makes clear - and then, to look at the evidence from empirical studies - which also confirms the overwhelming influence of such circumstantial cues. I would suggest that if Memills does not understand these distinctions, then he should revisit the literature. He might start with Holland's thesis, which gives perhaps the most thorough review of the literature to date. Otherwise he might look at the West et al. work referenced in the edit. - DMSchneider (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications.

The work by Holland is a primary source -- one that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia recommends the reliance on secondary or tertiary sources over primary sources.

Granted, these are interesting debates. However, they are a bit far afield, esoteric, and in-depth for this brief sub-section of this WP article. These debates should be mentioned briefly here, but would be better explored in more detail in more directly relevant articles such as Kin recognition or Inclusive fitness.

My suggestion is to edit this sub-section to include the evidence for identification of kin by biologically mediated mechanisms such as scent (MHC matching, etc.), phenotyic matching, etc., as well as to make the sub-section more succinct while referring readers to reference other WP pages for more in depth info. Memills (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be wiki-lawyering, and again it is disingenuous. Here is what wikipedia says about primary and secondary sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources#Definitions_of_primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary) :

- Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; videos; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; untabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; the original written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations which have not been published in a peer reviewed source; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.[1] - Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event or body of primary-source material and may include an interpretation, analysis, or synthetic claims about the subject.[2] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[3][4]

In this definition, Holland's work is clearly more close to a secondary source, in that it gives "an interpretation, analysis, or synthetic claims about the subject.[2] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims" and in that it is peer-reviewed. The wiki guidelines on what counts as 'reliable sources' are very clear in respect of PhD theses:

- Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

I trust that these effectively clarify your concerns on this "quality of source" matter. Holland's thesis is exactly the kind of material wikipedia should be drawing upon, being synthetic, peer-reviewed and reliable.

You may like to consider whether original papers published in some of the EP journals count as primary or secondary in this sense, and whether a paper that shows that US college students are sensitive to facial shape is really an optimal source for an article in wikipedia.

On your claim that these are "a bit far afield, esoteric, and in-depth for this brief sub-section of this WP article" - how very convenient. I don't think that e.g. Hamilton's clearest statement on how IFT should be interpreted vis-a-vis mediating mechanisms is at all 'esoteric' when the section is precisely on how IFT is operationalized. This is central to the issue, not far afield. I have deliberately chosen quotes and a discussion of the key points which is straightforward and to the point. It 'cuts to the heart of the matter' in a way which removes some of the ambiguity and misunderstandings that other derivations of IFT precisely rely upon - perhaps this is what you object to?

This section is not about kin recognition. It is about how IFT applies to human social behaviour (family and kin) - it is not about mating avoidance. Work on e.g. MHC / sensitivity to facial similarity etc should only be included if it is: a) shown to be a dominant mechanism governing social cooperation in humans (do you have sources demonstrating this?)

b) shown to be universally applicable across a wide variety of human societies (as Holland's approach does). Otherwise of course, the danger is that it just reflects a cultural practice in a small number of societies.

On point a) Contextual cues (location-based, familiarity, sharing the nest etc) have been repeatedly demonstrated to far outweigh MHC or scent-based identification in all the 'kin-recognition' literature on mammals and primates, and Holland has shown it to be the dominant mediator of social ties in a huge range of human societies. I am not aware of any research that suggests that MHC or other direct mechanisms are equally influential as e.g. developmental familiarity. If you read the 2007 paper by Lieberman et al, you will see that they point to familairity as a key mechanism. But the problem with that as a source is that it is not cross-culturally validated. b) I know of no paper that points to a wide body of cross-cultural evidence to support the dominance of one of these kin recognition mechanisms. Most are based on US college students, with a few looking at a small number of other cultures.

Re: concern about space: - I am concerned that, in the absence of any reasonable academic objection to the substantive content of this edit, you are now seeking to diminish it by raising concern that there 'may not enough space for it'. Are you sure this is not your motivation? This section on family and kin is slightly longer than some of the other sections in this part of the EP article, but only by a proportion (it is not double or more). If you have a genuine concern to remove content, then why not shorten the part on rb>c and point to the IFT or kin selection article? We might also shorten the West et al quote, but obviously not by removing the crucial distinction that is the point they are making. Some combination of these two would take the section length back into the average of the other nearby sections of the article.

On a final point of procedure: I reviewed your part in the discussion with Holland last time, and it appeared that you essentially castrated the significance of the proposed edit by shortening it substantially, and writing it in your own words, and putting a spin on it to point it away from the key distinction that it originally made. It would be totally unacceptable for that to occur here, even though you got away with it last time. DMSchneider (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your WP link to primary vs. secondary sources is not current WP policy -- it was a proposal. At the top of the page it states in red: "This is a failed proposal."

The current policy is here and it is clearly stated:

"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."

Memills (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification on which wiki policy page is more relevant. I have read the page you point to. It states:

- Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7][8] - Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Are you suggesting that Holland's thesis is not a secondary source? In terms of the few illustrative examples given here, it is surely in the general category of a "review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." It is obviously a review thesis rather than a review article. It analyzes research papers in a field (also summarises their salient points, and synthesizes them). Perhaps you are not doubting it qualifies as a secondary source, and instead you are simply kindly drawing my attention to the most current policy guideline? If so, thank you. DMSchneider (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

By definition, a dissertation is not just a review article. It must be an original contribution, either with new data or a new theoretical synthesis. Holland proposed an original synthesis -- it was not just a literature review of the existing theory and research. Memills (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Memills, I believe you are either obfuscating or confused. I agree that Holland's contribution must have been 'original' in the sense that all dissertations are supposed to be original. We are surely not disputing that. The thesis was peer-reviewed accepted and published in all the important senses that we covered above. The question you are getting at is surely whether an editor of a wikipedia article should use such a source (secondary, peer-reviewed accepted and published - in all the sense here discussed and outlined in the policy articles). Look also at this policy note:

- A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia. - Reputable secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source. High-quality secondary sources often synthesize together multiple primary sources, in due proportion to the expert-determined quality of the primary sources. This helps us present the material in due proportion to the sources' actual importance, rather than in due proportion to the size of the sources' publicity budgets.

(I have added the emphasis at the end of the first paragraph above). In light of all this discussion, Memills, I think anyone would have to conclude that Holland's thesis is a perfectly appropriate source for sections of content in a wikipedia article. Please could you state clearly whether you disagree with my position - that Holland's thesis is an appropriate source for wikipedia? DMSchneider (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a primary source that can be referenced (I don't think primary sources should be excluded), but not given undue weight. What would be more useful for WP would be additional secondary sources (a textbook, a literature review in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.) that examined Holland's synthesis, and those of others, and critically reviewed the entire issue, examining both pro and con evidence. You mentioned an article by West -- I've not read it yet, but that might be more along these lines. Memills (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be excellent to have a range of corroborating commentary, but I don't feel that diminishes the importance of Holland's position for the purposes of giving a clear account and summary of the key issues involved within this article. I disagree that it is a primary source, for all the reasons given already. I think you are calling it a primary source because you would like it to be the case that Holland's central synthesis is something we can sideline as risky, esoteric and speculative - but it is not. If it were not a high quality work, it would likely not have achieved the PhD. That's what makes it a reliable peer-reviewed source that is suitable for use in wikipedia. In fact there are no other sources that go into comparable depth on how IFT applies to humans; only these more superfluous research papers, which frankly are not really tackling the relevant issues ~ on the other hand, I agree with you that the Lieberman et al article does attempt to tackle the issues with a degree of logic and theoretical rigour, and perhaps its key conclusions might also be mentioned here. The article by West et al is available here: http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/pdf/WestElMoudenGardner_11.pdf and there are others from his research group elsewhere at that URL. DMSchneider (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You should take the source question to the reliable sources noticeboard. PhD theses have been discussed there many times, as you will be able to see in the archive of the project. The basic position is that we use theses only with care, and we prefer articles in academic journals. But there may well be a particular case to be argued here. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, Judith. I agree with your above summary of the basic position on the above RSN wiki. Many of the key points made on the RSN concerning the reliability of theses seem to relate to questions over the variability of quality filters at different PhD granting institutions, although there are other things discussed, e.g. whether the research is relying on its own original data (primary) or whether it is analysing the existing body of published data / literature (thus making it closer to a secondary source). According to the wiki guidelines discussed earlier, I would maintain that in surveying and synthesising the already published data within the relevant literature, the thesis is a 'secondary source'. Memills disagrees, and classifies it as a primary source, although it is unclear to me why, given the wiki guidelines. In relation to the institutional quality, the reliability of the thesis in question then becomes - can we reasonably consider that the London School of Economics (the place where Hamilton studied for his doctoral work, in parallel with studying at University College, London) has decent quality filters, or is it more like a dissertation mill? The LSE produced "the highest percentage of world-leading research of any British university in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise" (most recent assessment undertaken by the official UK government research funding body) and there have been 16 Nobel Prize winners amongst its alumni and current and former staff (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/keyFacts/nobelPrizeWinners/Home.aspx). Thus I think a reasonable conclusion should be that it has a pretty high standard of quality filters for its research output, including its granting of PhD research degrees. I have checked that Holland's thesis is available in hard copy at the LSE library, and it is also available for (free) digital download from the British library website. On this basis, I would maintain my earlier position, that this is a good quality source. Please add any further points that should be considered as pros/cons of this particular case. DMSchneider (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that LSE is an elite institution, although as it happens, it does have [Saif Gadaffi|one recent example]] of a dodgy PhD thesis. It seems that Holland hasn't published his work in journal article form. Have similar points been made by other scholars? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertations are generally published, as a requirement for publication. They are just not published by trade presses. Some universities have their own in-house press to do a print-run od doctoral dissertations. In the United States, doctoral candidates used to pay a company called University Microfilms to publish their dissertation (this was purchased by Proquest - the point is, one can order a reprint of a doctoral dissertation. Copies of dissertations are also generally kept in the university library, and available through inter-library loan. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of British theses, as well as inter-library loans, copies of the thesis in bound form (a 'book') can be ordered on-line from the British Library, and PDF versions of many thesis can be downloaded for free from the BL website.(http://ethos.bl.uk) - DMSchneider (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thus meeting our verifiability requirement. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Too few opinions tag

The article continues to be confused and biased in the way it represents the field as unified around a single research agenda and a set of assumptions, while ignoring those psychologists who adopt evolutionary approaches without sharing those assumptions. Many sources distinguish between a narrow and a broadly defined field of evolutionary psychology (e.g. Laland & Brown, Scher& Rauscher), reserving the narrow definition for the modularity school centered around Tooby/Buss/Cosmides/Pinker (+Kurzban, Mills etc.) and a broader field that does not share the assumptions of adaptationism and mental modularity, but still employ the evolutionary framework. The article should and could do a much better job by acknowledging that there are different evolutionary approaches and then either deciding to focus on the narrow one or expanding the scope to describe the disagreements among different evolutionary approaches to the mind (which would include non-modularity, and those critics like Sperber Tomasello and Deacon (and Buller) who also employ evolutionary models).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

All evolutionary psychologists, are, by definition, adaptationists, and all share a modular approach to the evolution of the brain/mind. There are many evolutionary psychology textbooks that help to describe the major theories and empirical findings of the discipline, and, it is these sources on which this article should rely. None of them make a distinction between "broad vs. narrow EP," "non-adaptationist EP,", "non-modularity EP," etc. Memills (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. The term adaptationist comes from Evolutionary biology where it describes the stance that most features can be described as adaptations - not all evolutionary biologists are adaptationists. There is no reason the article should be based on the handful of textbooks that present the discipline in a light that is contradicted by other sources that define the discipline in broader terms. Laland and Brown is also a textbook, it presents a general review of the discipline in one of the chapters and it is preferable exactly because it gives an outside perspective on the discipline (comparing it to other related fields such as Sociobiology, Behavioral Ecology and gene-Culture Co-evolution) rather than the inside perspective of EP practitioners. If this article is about the narrow perspective that is presented in EP textbooks then the article should do a much better job showing that EP is not the only evolutionary approach to the human mind and describe what makes it different from other paradigms such as those represented by Rauscher, Scher, Tomasello, Deacon, Sperber, etc. The article currently makes it look as if the Buss/Tooby/Cosmides school is the only evolutionary approach to psychology which it isn't by a long shot.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is an oxymoron to call oneself an evolutionary biologist but not an adaptationist.

The Laland and Brown book is not an EP textbook. It compares and contrasts EP with other broad, somewhat overlapping disciplines.

As a cultural anthropologist you come from a different, incompatible theoretical orientation. You have made it well known here on the EP Talk page that you disagree with the fundamental postulates of EP.

However, this article should be consistent with the EP textbooks themselves, EP postulates need not be tagged with "opinion tags" because yours is different. (Should we head over to the Cultural Anthropology page and plaster that page with "opinion tags" for what are the foundational theoretical postulates of the discipline?)

I have listed some EP textbooks before for you here previously on these Talk pages. Also, I have suggested that you check out the foremost academic society devoted to EP research: The Human Behavior and Evolution Society, especially their own self-description, and the annual conference proceedings.

Of course, I don't really that think reading EP textbooks, journal articles, or conference abstracts will change your mind about EP. You, and others, disagree with what EP has to say, and that is ok. But let's not redefine how evolutionary psychologists themselves define their own discipline or allow an inaccurate description of the field here. Memills (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The current description is misleading. My background and opinion about EP is irrelevant - what is relevant is that there is demonstrably psychologists who identify themselves as Evolutionary psychologists but do not share what you say are basic assumptions. As for your assertion about what is an oxymoron in evolutionary biology that betrays a lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theory - adaptation is but one force of evolution. And there is a wide range of viewpoints in evolutionary biology about how much to emphasise it in explanations of various traits. Presumably those same discussions would apply in EP - (they clearly do judging from the evidence (for example the evolutionary biologist and cognitive scientist W. Tecumseh Fitch discounts EP because of what he calls its "adaptationist tendencies"). You cannot give a small group of EP'ers the sole right to define their discipline anymore than the postmodernist wavers in cultural anthropology can redefine the field to not include those who still consider themselves to practice science. A wikipedia article has to provide a broad and adequate view based both on field external and internal sources - not just a sectarian inside view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should present the majority, consensus views of those who identify themselves as evolutionary psychologists, especially those who are active researchers & contributors in the field. Adaptationism, evolved brain/mind modularity, nature-nurture interactionism, the distinction between generally obligate vs. facultative traits, etc., are a few of the fundamental postulates of the discipline -- they are not the minority views of a "small group of EP'ers." These are the consensus postulates the field.

Clarification/caveat -- adaptationists, including EPers, understand that evolution also occurs via random drift, etc., and that many traits are not adaptations but are byproducts of adaptations, or, random variation. One of the important objectives of the field is to try to identify traits that are underlying cognitive / emotional adaptations from those that are not. Several traits that have been hypothesized to be psychological adaptations have failed empirical tests and thus abandoned from inclusion as part of evolved psychological human nature -- see, for example, PsychTable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Memills (talk • contribs)

I am sorry but the assertion that the article should only present the majority view is not in line with our policies, the article should represent the totality, with due weight to all significant viewpoints. A comparable situation is Christianity, where a number of different denominations claim to be "the real christians", just because Catholics are the majority that does not mean they get to define who is an isn't a Christian in wikipedia articles. In the same way Sta. Barbara EP'ers do not get to define other evolutionary psychologists out of existence in wikipedia. That is just basic editing policy. Secondly I don't think "adaptationism" means what you think it means, and neither does the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] - you use it to mean simply "Darwinism" (i.e. the belief in natural selection and adaptation), it actually means a philosophy within Darwinism that emphasizes adaptive explanations over possible historical contingencies inherent in genetic drift, Baldwin effects and developmental constraints. Also I do know that many EP'ers are responsive to negative evidence and some even to criticism, especially when it comes from other EP'ers - but the narrow school do share the adaptationism of philosophers like Dennett. Not all psychologists or cognitive scientists who work on evolutionary explanations of mind and behavior share these views as I have been trying to demonstrate. This means that either the scope of this article must be broadened to include those views or it must introduce a distinction between the narrow "Evolutionary Psychology (proper/narrowly defined)" and "Evolutionary approaches to Psychology." Currently the article claims to be about the latter but is only about the former. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the article claims to be about a specific field of psychology called "Evolutionary Psychology." This field is well defined and is associated with the specific set of foundational assumptions that are noted above.

There is a very small school of Jungian psychology that also has referred to itself as "Evolutionary Psychology." If someone wanted to create an article on that topic, along with a disambiguation page, that would be fine.

However, other than that, there is no organized, well defined field of evolutionary approaches to psychology with the same, or different, name. There are no well defined fields, or textbooks, about alternative evolutionary approaches that reject the foundational propositions of EP. If there were, they would identify themselves with a unique name such as "non-adaptationist evolutionary psychology," "intelligent design evolutionary psychology," or "random genetic drift evolutionary psychology" or somesuch. There isn't. What you are referring to are mostly critics of Evolutionary Psychology (many of whom are not psychologists) who have produced some alternative theories/hypotheses, but who have yet to coalesce to produce an alternative organized, well defined research program that has scientific journals, academic associations/socities, textbooks and academic conferences. Memills (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Original papers?

The sections talking about the research fields in EP are summaries of a secondary source (a text book). The quality would go up several notches if the original papers where the findings were presented were to be mentioned in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

need to say more about ongoing changes

Normally evolution proceeds slowly, but it can go decently fast (as when breeding) when you have a huge genetic pool (7 billion people) and massive environmental change (lots of things in the past century). It has already been noted (by Professor Jane Falkingham for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19923200) that fertility rates in advanced countries are rising again.

The obvious answer, like an elephant in the kitchen that we politely pretend to not see, is that we are selecting for mental traits that overcome birth control. Physical adaptation isn't likely to work all that well, but mental adaptation easily gets the job done. The selection pressure is immense; nothing else is even remotely comparable. 208.118.25.22 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What are mental traits that overcome birth control? People apply their natural ingenuity to try and achieve the family sizes they want. In developed countries most people have some success in this, but not always complete success, e.g. they wanted three children but had twins in the third pregnancy so ended up with four; they wanted two children but only had one. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "apply their natural ingenuity to try and achieve the family sizes they want" and I see three mental traits: ability to plan and work toward some goal, level of ingenuity, and desired family size. Selection pressure is active on every one of those mental traits. If a person can make a choice that results in fewer offspring surviving into the Nth generation, then the mental traits that lead to that choice are selected against. 208.118.25.22 (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comparative mythology

Question: it would seem to me that comparative mythology yields excellent examples of what might be called "universal cognitive themes". Like key themes in Shakespearean plays some myths are regarded as "universal" and "eternal" because they exert such a powerful hold on the human mind across all times and cultures. To me this shouts out that here we have a facet of the human mind that is ripe for close inspection using the toolbox of evolutionary psychology. I am unfamiliar with evolutionary psychology but I assume all this depth psychology material would have been dismissed or examined. What is the state of play please? Has it already been done, is an inappropriate question, or are there any key papers or books on this topic? Just because myths and dreams have been hammered in another sector of your field doesn't mean that EP can't have a go too? Or are you all too embarrased to tell me I am asking a silly question? Or that you might look silly to others if you make an attempt at an answer? Come on guys and gals its a straightforward question. Granitethighs 09:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See Darwinian literary studies. Memills (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That is an eye-opener. Many thanks Memills, that was just what I was after. I'll cogitate on the role of EP in this fascinating field before probably pestering you again. In the meantime thanks again for taking the trouble to point this article out, its a hum-dinger.Granitethighs 22:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Section "Ethical implications"

I partially reverted the changes by Memills because they misrepresented the references.

Richardson summarizes Thornhill and Palmer's evolutionary psychological theory of rape as "rape is a behavioral strategy that enhances male fitness".

Wilson, Dietrich & Clark write about Thornhill and Palmer's argument: "According to this hypothesis, women evolved to play "hard to get" so that only the toughest and most fit men would succeed in mating with them. Women may not want to be raped in terms of their psychological motivation, but their very horror ensures that they will impregnated by the best. This form of male choice could result in more fit daughters in addition to more fit sons, although Thornhill and Palmer mention only the latter possibility".

This is clearly quite different from Memills' description "both animal and human male predispositions to engage in rape under certain circumstances might be either a sexually dimorphic psychological adaptation, or, a byproduct of other male sexual adaptations."

I also removed the quote that Memills' added per WP:Coatrack as this is not the place to discuss the veracity of Thornhill and Palmer's theory of rape. Moreover, I reverted the attribution because this seems rather selective to me. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you actually read Thornhill and Palmer. Their book does suggest that "both animal and human male predispositions to engage in rape under certain circumstances might be either a sexually dimorphic psychological adaptation, or, a byproduct of other male sexual adaptations" (see the first sentence of the WP article re the book, which notes this). If their position is misrepresented by another author(s), it should be clarified what they actually stated in their book.

In addition, the quote by Wilson, Dietrich & Clark should be restored to accurately represent their position on these issues: "...we want to stress that we are sympathetic with the goals of evolutionary psychology and think that research should proceed on all fronts, including the possibility that unethical behaviors such as rape evolved by natural selection."

Finally, evolutionary psychologists caution against using the Naturalistic Fallacy, they do not "invoke it." This is the opposite of what is meant. Memills (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The section is about the ethical implications of evolutionary psychology. Two sources have been cited for the criticism that evolutionary psychological theories can have far-reaching ethical implications. It is patently obvious that your description of the two sources misrepresents them. Please be more careful when you change sourced content. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Er... not following you. What specifically do you think is misrepresented? Memills (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The references say nothing about "sexually dimorphic psychological adaptation", "byproduct", "animal and human male predispositions" in connection to Thornhill and Palmer's theory. I have no idea how you came up with that stuff. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Then, perhaps you should read their book. Or, with far less effort, see this sentence in the WP article about the book A Natural History of Rape: "The book argues that rape should be understood through evolutionary psychology, and that the capacity for rape is either an adaptation or a byproduct of adaptative traits such as sexual desire and aggressiveness..." (emphasis added) Memills (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if you believe that Richardson and Wilson et al. misunderstood Thornhill and Palmer's argument and were wrong to cite is as an example. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilson et al. did not misunderstand Thornhill and Palmer's argument -- where did you get that idea? And, Richardson's misrepresentation/misunderstanding of Thornhill and Palmer is not relevant? Not following you there. Memills (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilson et al. and Richardson wrote that Thornhill and Palmer view rape as a mate choice that enhances male fitness. I agree that they did not misunderstand Thornhill and Palmer's theory. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, perhaps it would be a good idea to read Thornhill and Palmer's book -- you are a bit confused. Only if a facultative predisposition to rape generally increased male reproductive success could it become an evolved psychological adaptation. Otherwise it would be a byproduct of other psychological adaptations. Again, this needs to be pointed out given Richardson's incorrect characterization of Thornhill and Palmer. Richardson's statement: "rape is a behavioral strategy that enhances male fitness" is not what they concluded -- they suggested it might do so (if it is an adaptation) or it might not (if it is a byproduct).

Again, the material re Wilson et al. gives an incorrect presentation of the main point of their article -- the quote from their paper that I included puts their actual position on ethics and evolutionary psychology context: "...we want to stress that we are sympathetic with the goals of evolutionary psychology and think that research should proceed on all fronts, including the possibility that unethical behaviors such as rape evolved by natural selection." Memills (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

<edit conflict> It would be best to stick to the references given. Your opinion that Richardson (who says the same thing as Wilson et al., only shorter) misrepresented Thornhill/Palmer's theory is irrelevant. The main point of the Wilson et al. article is, to quote the abstract, that "evolutionary psychologists are themselves confused about the naturalistic fallacy and use it inappropriately to forestall legitimate ethical discussion. We briefly review what the naturalistic fallacy is and why it is misused by evolutionary psychologists." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And, that despite this: "...we want to stress that we are sympathetic with the goals of evolutionary psychology and think that research should proceed on all fronts, including the possibility that unethical behaviors such as rape evolved by natural selection." As far as the main point of their article, that isn't even elucidated -- why do they have specific concerns about cautioning about the Naturalistic Fallacy? Would be nice to know. Memills (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is your opinion that Wilson et al. did not elucidate their main point. Feel free to write a response to their article and publish it in a reliable source. Then we can talk about it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I felt that you did not did not elucidate their main point. You simply stated that their article suggested that "evolutionary psychologists are themselves confused about the naturalistic fallacy" which is not very helpful unless the confusions are elucidated. Did you read the article to find out what their specific concerns are? Memills (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Their main point, as formulated in their abstract, is that evolutionary psychologists are confused about the naturalistic fallacy and misuse it to stifle legitimate ethical discussion. This is why I wrote: "However, their [evolutionary psychologists'] use of the naturalistic fallacy has been criticized as fallacious and a means to stifle legitimate ethical discussions." Perhaps I should add the "confused" part to fully reflect what the source states. I could add a very long explanation but that would be WP:UNDUE. Please read the WP:Policies and guidelines to avoid any confusion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No long explanation needed.

If I say you are confused, it is helpful if I also describe why I feel you are confused (as I did above).

Same with Wilson et al. It's not much help to the WP reader to hear that evolutionary psychology is "confused" re the Naturalistic Fallacy without at least a sentence or two elucidating what that confusion is about. As is, the term "confused" is just an unsupported label. Another reference source might be added saying that they are "not confused"... leaving the reader without an understanding of the issues involved and... confused.

Please read the article and add something about what the confusion is about, otherwise the current prose re Wilson et al. is only WP:LABEL per WP:Policies and guidelines and it should be removed Memills (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would caution you -- you have apparently violated the WP:3RR via these edits: [2] [3][4][5]Memills talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It will take more than a sentence or two. Something like: Wilson et al. (2003) have argued that evolutionary psychologists are themselves confused about the naturalistic fallacy and misuse it to forestall legitimate ethical discussions. The authors suggest that a factual statement must be combined with an ethical statement to derive an ethical conclusion, hence "ought" cannot be described exclusively from "is". They state that if one combines Thornhill and Palmer's theory that rape increases the fitness of a woman's offspring with the ethical premise that it is right to increase fitness of offspring, the resulting deductively valid conclusion is that rape has also positive effects and that its ethical status is ambiguous. I believe that such an explanation would be WP:UNDUE. It suffices to say that evolutionary psychologists misunderstand and misuse the naturalistic fallacy to dismiss legitimate ethical discussion. Interested readers can read the source or the main article to learn more. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Our personal opinions don't matter much here. However, their statement that "rape has also positive effects" in terms of reproductive success is not an argument that rape is morally positive. Pretty lame argument, an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy itself (an effect is different from a moral good), but I think most folks will note the irony. Memills (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Section 9.6 Evolutionary psychology defence

The terseness of the content in this field makes it inadequate as a response. It also comes off as a bit smug. A reader (if following the author) might presume that evolutionary psychology is in no need of justification and that none of the preceding points justify a response. To suggest that all reservations or critiques of evolutionary psychology are either disingenuous or the result of a lack of understanding is vapid, and a little imperious.

This field needs to be elaborated on, or perhaps removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.116.250 (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The reference is placed at the ending of the article as an unspecified blanket dismissal of all criticisms. Like a mainspace version of WP:Final word. It seems to suggest that the preceding arguments were nonsensical. I suggest to either specify (which arguments, why are the criticisms straw men etc.) or remove it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not much room left in this section of the article to adequately respond. However, many of the responses to criticisms are covered in the reference provided (Confer, et al.), as well as in the main article Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Memills (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refuse to get the point. The article's criticism-"rebuttal"-"rebuttal" structure fails WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV. The Cofer et al. source is used twice to "rebutt" criticisms and it's used again as a "last word". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please show an example in this article of: criticism-"rebuttal"-"rebuttal" Memills (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Some critics view evolutionary psychology as a form of genetic reductionism and genetic determinism..." (criticism)

"Evolutionary psychologists respond that EP works within a nature-nurture interactionist framework..." ("rebuttal" by Confer et al.)

"Evolutionary psychologists argue that many of the criticisms leveled against the field are straw men, are based on an incorrect nature vs. nurture dichotomy, or are based on a misunderstandings of the discipline" (second "rebuttal" or last word by Confer et al.) And so forth. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism: EP is genetic determinism.

Rebuttal: EP is not genetic determinism, it is nature-nurture interactionism.

2nd rebuttal re this issue: none.

The sentence re the Confer, et al., article provides an overall summary of what they see as several frequent misunderstandings of EP by critics. Memills (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Confer et al. specifically address the issue of genetic determinism (see Confer et al, p. 120) and many other issues. So what we have is a criticism-"rebuttal"-"rebuttal" structure (Confer et al. used as the source for the double "rebuttal") that violates WP:NPOV. That is one example of a problem that affects all subsections. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence referenced to Confer, et al. states: "Overall, evolutionary psychologists argue that many of the criticisms leveled against the field are straw men, are based on an incorrect nature vs. nurture dichotomy, or are based on a misunderstandings of the discipline." Nothing in that sentence about genetic determinism. So, a bit of a stretch to suggest that this sentence is a 2nd rebuttal. Memills (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the Confer et al. paper never actually claims or implies the some of the criticisms are "straw men". More importantly, the sentence is so unspecific that it could very well be a second "rebuttal" (good grief) re genetic determinism. And it is if you look at the paper. "Many criticisms" – which criticisms and why? The sentence offers absolutely nothing except a second blanket "rebuttal" in response to unspecified and unknown criticisms. It needs to go per WP:STRUCTURE, WP:NPOV and basically all other content policies. If you want to see how a section should not be written, the Evolutionary psychology defense section ("evolutionary psychology defense" – how ridiculous can it get?) is a fine example. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Differentiation between this article and Evolutionary psychology of language

There is a great deal of similarity between this language section in this article and Evolutionary psychology of language.

Please see: Talk:Evolutionary psychology of language for questions/thoughts about greater differentiation between the articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

Insofar as evolutionary psychology relates to topics discussed in the field of psychology in general, and to topics related to human cognition and intelligence, you may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Accurate representation of sources / Edit warring, revisited

Sonicyouth86, again, especially in light of the discussion above re edit warring, please discuss here before you engage in multiple reversions.

As I asked when I reverted your edit (before you thereafter reverted it back), please discuss your concerns here.

You claim misrepretation of sources here as justification for your reversion. I don't see it -- please explain.

To the contrary, I see misrepresentation of Thornhill and Palmer, as well as a misrepresentation of what the Naturalistic Fallacy is in the prose (and incorrect use of the term). The purpose of my edit was to correct these errors. Memills (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to misrepresent what Richardson and Wilson et al. say about Thornhill and Palmer's theory were discussed here. As for the blog post by Kurzban: Surely you can see that he says nothing in response to Richardson and Wilson et al. or their argument. Please do not add and edit war to keep your original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are quite confused about some of the content.

You apparently wish to misrepresent the thesis of Thornhill and Palmer's book. If Richardson and Wilson et al. misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer, there is no reason why that should not be pointed out.

Your suggestion that evolutionary psychologists "commit" the Naturalistic Fallacy: The use of the term "commit" is incorrect, and it betrays a misunderstanding of their concerns and a misrepresentation of the source.

I suggest that we would do well to have a neutral 3rd party review this issue. Memills (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You are confused about the entire reception section. The reception section summarizes how evolutionary psychology (including Thornhill and Palmers explanation of rape) was received. Richardson and Wilson et al. have criticized Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis. It is irrelevant that you think that the criticism is unjustified. What matters is that you refrain from misrepresenting Richardson and Wilson et al. just because you believe that they misunderstand evolutionary psychology and Thornhill and Palmer. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We agree -- "It is irrelevant that you think." That's why we include references in WP.

Again, as I'm sure you read above, "If Richardson and Wilson et al. misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer, there is no reason why that should not be pointed out" (supported by references) ...but I repeat myself.

What matters is that you refrain insisting that I have misrepresented Richardson and Wilson et al." when, in fact, I have not. Memills (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly misrepresented the two sources, see Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Section_.22Ethical_implications.22. You need to understand at least two things. a) WP:STRUCTURE: The reception section is where the reception of evolutionary psychology belongs. It is not the place to defend evolutionary psychology from them bad stoopid creatio... critics. b) WP:Original research: You need reliable sources that state that Wilson et al. and Richardson misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer. But remember WP:STRUCTURE in your attempts to prove critics wrong. You can try to write the article Criticism of the criticism of evolutionary psychology and see where it gets you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"You need reliable sources that state that Wilson et al. and Richardson misrepresent Thornhill and Palmer." Er... no, I don't. The original reference, Thornhill and Palmer, can be used. To wit: "Although the question whether rape is an adaptation or a by-product cannot yet be definitively answered… " (Thornhill and Palmer, p. 84). They also have an entire chapter titled: “Human Rape: Adaptation or Byproduct?”

And, as I noted previously above, per WP:Crit "...section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments." Responses to criticisms are appropriate in a Reception section.

So, let's focus on accuracy, and see where it gets us.

If the two of us cannot come to an agreement on these issues, I suggest that solicit a 3rd opinion -- WP:3O. Memills (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The original reference, Thornhill and Palmer, says nothing in response to Richardson and Wilson et al. It says nothing about the reception of evolutionary psychology in general and the reception of their hypothesis in particular. Do you understand that the section "Reception" needs to be about the reception of evolutionary psychology, not another place to describe EP concepts? Nope, responses to criticisms and responses to responses to criticisms and responses to responses to responses to responses to criticisms... are inappropriate per WP:STRUCTURE. I understand that you want to prove them wrong with an awesome rebuttal like "They are wrong, and they use straw-man arguments, and they don't understand evolutionary psychology" and that you want to have the last word but you need to respect our content policies like WP:OR and WP:STRUCTURE. For years editors have tried to explain to you why your contributions to EP related articles are problematic. The next step is a WP:RFC/U. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted before, you tend to lob out ad homenims. Please stop -- that is not helpful. Please, also, do not put words in my mouth. I have responded to your concerns without making personal attacks on you, what you may or may not believe, and, I have assumed good faith. I ask the same of you.

At this point, as I previously suggested, I think it is time to request help from a neutral third party WP:3O. I will put in a request there. Memills (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted before, you claim that criticism A is wrong and demand to have your opinion included in the article. When I tell you that you need references you suggest to use your understanding of a reference that doesn't say anything about criticism A. When I explain to you that WP:OR is non-negotiable and that your contributions have been criticized by multiple editors, you accuse me of lobbing out "ad homenims" [sic] or something. How predictable. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my...

You state: "you claim that criticism A is wrong and demand to have your opinion included in the article." Nooo.... A very careful, close reading of my comments above will reveal that I suggested that Thornhill and Palmer can be used as reference. Did you see that? Did you see their quote that I included? Referencing what Thornhill and Palmer actually wrote is not by any stretch of the imagination WP:OR. It is just proper sourcing.

Thornhill and Palmer: "The moon is NOT made of green cheese."

Richardson and Wilson: "Thornhill and Palmer say that the moon IS made of green cheese."

According to Sonicyouth86 we must now find a reference that says: Smith and Jones say that Richardson and Wilson are wrong when they say that "Thornhill and Palmer say that the moon IS made of green cheese."

Actually, we can simply say: Thornhill and Palmer say that "The moon is NOT made of green cheese." (ref, page #) Memills (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is changing here and it involves the same old problems. The "Evolutionary Psychology Defense" section is nothing more than a Pro-EP polemic that lumps critics into one large grouping and effectively dismisses them out of hand without engaging the real issues in any depth. The quote about holding backward-facing guns is outrageous (is that even from a peer-reviewed published source?). Based on MeMills' approach, I wonder if we should add another section titled: "Critics' Reception of Evolutionary Psychologists' Purported Defense." Also, why does the introductory paragraph still say "controversies of EP," even though the page it refers to is "criticism of EP"? The field is more than controversial, it has specific criticisms against it. It seems appropriate to label it for what it is (though no doubt MeMills will take issue with that).

I have said this before: that MeMills has been trolling these pages and is invested in ensuring that evolutionary psychology is seen favorably and that any issues about its reception are dismissed out of hand. This is anything but a NPOV. I have peer reviewed publication in this area, and could no doubt offer some useful contributions to outlining the issues of the critics, but I would not dare come back to this page until MeMills was significantly outnumbered or banned. Logic prevails (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Let's hope it isn't true. But if it is, let's hope it does not become widely known."

So... the best way to deal with editors with whom you disagree is to attack and silence them? Your previous efforts on this page (in the archives) to suppress the inclusion of appropriate information has been stunning.

My objective here is (a) accuracy, and (b) airing of both sides of the debate, both on this page, and on the Criticism of evolutionary psychology page. Your already acknowledged antipathy toward evolutionary psychology is not a basis for suppressing information about it on WP.

The old paradigms that evolutionary psychology challenges don't die quietly. However, the tide is gradually turning (see, for example, this article by Jerry Coyne). Memills (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hi, I'm jumping in to provide a third opinion as per the request on WP:THIRD. The request pointed to an archived discussion but this thread seems to touch on more or less the same issues. I've read the archived discussion and it appears there are two distinct issues: 1) Whether Thornhill and Palmer view rape is a form of mate choice that increases reproductive fitness, and 2) the "naturalistic fallacy" issue.

Starting from the first one, Wilson writes on page 673, fourth paragraph, line 10 that T&P don't condsider that a very plausible hypothesis, rather merely a theoretical possibility. Therefore based on the Wilson source, it doesn't seem correct to say T&P view rape is a form of mate choice that increases reproductive fitness.

Concerning the second item in dispute, Wilson says in the abstract that evolutionary psychologists mention the "naturalistic fallacy" as an erroneous way of thinking, which sounds like cautioning against it to me, rather than "invoking" although I can also see the thinking behing "invoking" in the sense that the naturalistic-fallacy card is played.

Overall in terms of the shortness of the text in question, it strikes me to ask whether T&P or Wilson need to be mentined by name at all. Why not simply say that critics say EP theories may have unwanted ethical consequenses, that EP caution against the naturalistic fallacy, and that some see that cautioning as a way to forestall legitimate discussion? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sounds good to me. Memills (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A recent article of interest

Peters, B. M. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: Neglecting neurobiology in defining the mind. Theory & Psychology, 23(3), 305-322. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring

At 03:50, 5, May 2014 Memillis removed the following for the reason "non-EP sources" which I gather means that all seven sources were removed because they come from beyond evolutionary psychology. I dispute both that all sources must have an EP focus, and that none of these sources has an EP focus. To avoid an edit war, I leave it to third party editors to restore these sources as appropriate. The evaluative diversity article has an entire section on evolutionary explanations for the existence of evaluative diversity, and my goal here is for the evolutionary psychology article to include evaluative diversity in its list of areas in which evolutionary psychology has been applied.

On the other hand, diversity of personality may be a polymorphism, like gender and blood-type, which would evolve to benefit our species as a whole.[67] Computer scientists can solve wider ranges of problems when their algorithmic toolboxes have greater evaluative diversity,[68] various evolutionary theorists have shown that evaluative diversity could have evolved as a polymorphism among humans,[69] and evaluative diversity has been shown to significantly relate with some aspects of personality.[70] In other words, we may have different personalities at least partly because such diversity can improve evaluation by teams (as in a democracy).[71][72][73]

[67] Dean, Tim (2012). "Evolution and moral diversity". Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 7.

[68] Santos-Lang, Christopher (2014). "Chapter 6: Moral Ecology Approaches". In van Rysewyk, Simon; Pontier, Matthijs. Machine Medical Ethics. New York: Springer. pp. 74–96.

[69] Sober, Elliott; Wilson, David Sloan (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[70] Santos-Lang, Christopher (In Press). "Measuring computational evaluative differences in humans". WCSED Working Paper.

[71] Wilde, Douglass J (1997). "Using student preferences to guide design team composition". Proceedings of DETC ’97.

[72] Weisberg, Michael; Muldoon, Ryan (2009). "Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor". Philosophy of Science 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786.

[73] Hong, Lu; Page, Scott E. (2001). "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents". Journal of Economic Theory 97: 123–163. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2709.

I appreciate your good faith efforts and desire to improve the article.

Here is the diff in question.

I don't know if you are new to editing WP, but it is expected that you sign your comments here.

And, I don't know if you are new to EP, but no one in the field accepts a "good of the species" perspective. There is a large and growing body of work on personality and EP (as a scholar.google.com search will show). That material should probably be reviewed first before going to sources outside of the field. The paragraph also may be considered a synthesis, or original research WP:OR, and, it repeats the hypothesis already noted in this subtopic that personality may be a frequency dependent (or "polymorphic") trait. Memills (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of listing these sources under personality, one compromise might be to create a parallel subsection for evaluative diversity (aka "moral diversity"). It would be difficult to deny the significance of Sober & Wilson's work in this aspect of EP (scholar.google.com says they have been cited 2802 times), and I don't really see a better place to cite them in this article. Langchri (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring

Sonicyouth86, please discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page first. We apparently have very divergent views. Repeatedly reverting my edits back to yours without discussion / compromise here first amounts to edit warring. Memills (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from selective and unexplained removals of sourced content and rethink your strategy to introduce even more "rebuttals" to a section that has been criticized by multiple editors for its tendency to present "rebuttals" rather than "criticisms". Your explanation that something is "redundant" is unconvincing. Criticism of evolutionary psychology is the main article. The section "Reception" is supposed to summarize the content from the main article. I also noticed that you complain about redundancies but have no qualms about duplicating one more "rebuttal" (to a criticism that isn't even mentioned). And why do you remove references? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, the title of this section is... what?

I'm tempted to lob some ad hominems back. It is not an impressive approach, tho.

From WP:NPOVFAQ: "it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

And please do keep in mind WP:CRIT: "When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism." (emphasis added). Memills (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism has been banished to a separate section and presented in a manner that marginalizes the criticism via double "rebuttals". As it stands now, the section fails WP:Structure and your most recent edits did not help. You removed secondary sources (Wilson et al. and Levy) in favor of primary ones (Pinker without page reference), added more "rebuttals" to nonexistent criticisms, and gutted the section until only one short and unspecified critical sentence remained which you "rebutted" with two longer sentences that were based on primary sources, and included one "rebuttal" to something that wasn't even criticized. If it were up to you, more than two-thirds of the "Ethical implications" section would consist of "rebuttals". This is against pretty much all of our core content policies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, the WP "POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner." Fairness, in this case, involves rebutting criticisms that are clearly false, especially those have been empirically shown to be false. For example, statement that evolutionary psychologists work to justify "existing social hierarchies and reactionary policies" is counter to the fact that evolutionary psychologists are generally more political liberal than most folks. Since the criticism is false, it amounts to an ad hominem on the field (WP:Label) and is not notable. The "reductionism and determinism" of evolutionary psychology is no greater than any other science, which again, calls into question the notability of that criticism. If we want to talk about fairness, there is an entire article that explores the criticisms (both straw men and substantive) in depth, Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Memills (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner. At the moment, the criticism is not presented in a balanced and fair manner because editors have been trying to prove that the "criticism is false". More specifically, WP:NPOV states that "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" should be avoided. A reception or criticism section is about the reception or criticism, not about the way that evolutionary psychologists have responded to it. Evolutionary psychologists have the entire article to make their case and they should not get two and sometimes three chances to tell their side of the story. You can write the article Criticism of the criticism of evolutionary psychology if you must but you cannot cut down further on the actual criticisms and introduce even more "rebuttals". For years editors have complained about your editing and the structure of the evolutionary psychology and criticism of evolutionary psychology articles. Just some examples: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Please do not refuse to listen to what other editors have been telling you for years. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you make me blush. But... I really cannot take all the credit. There have been many, many editors who have written and edited both this page and the associated criticism page to offer rebuttals to criticisms. I could make a list of them for you, with 30 diff links, but I've got a life outside of here...

And, as I have told you repeatedly, please cut the ad homimens. They only exacerbate the problem with your editing that the title of this section refers to (italics as ironic exemplars). Memills (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I would comment that the obvious 'pro-EP' bias that Memills holds is one that has been pointed out by more than a handful of editors over the years. I agree with Sonicyouth86, that this page does not present a neutral point of view. The structure seems to go like this: "Critics say x,y,z, but evolutionary psychologists counter that such arguments are straw men - see Confer et al." Leaving aside the point about evolutionary psychologist always getting in the 'last word,' it is obvious to me that the Confer article does not actually address most of the criticisms. Memills knows this, which is why he does not provide page numbers and why he does not cite how it does accurately address the issues.--Logic prevails (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My interest is accuracy. Logic prevails, welcome back. You have already stated your antipathy toward the field in the archives of these Talk pages, nothing new there.

But, for a little light hearted diversion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_2TxDpYdLQ Memills (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The comical part about the video is the depiction of the critic of evolutionary psychology, portrayed as a football player who wears eye black and dabbles in cultural anthropology. Next time add some creationism to the stigmatized jock character and his interest in the social sciences and you're golden. A social psychologist would have a field day with the stereotyping in that video. It's a good illustration of the way sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have misrepresented academic criticisms.

As for the accuracy part please read the archives and comments about your involvement. It may be tempting to dismiss those comments as "creationist" [18] or whatever but please read them. Then you may want to reread the Confer et al. paper and see that the paper never actually claims that some of the criticisms are "straw men". The paper never uses that expression. It is something a specific editor made up. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, with the ad hominems? Someone should program an "ad hominem generator" to make it easier (something along the lines of the postmodernism generator).

According to, er, Wikipedia: "A straw man... is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

Do Confer, et al., suggest that critics misrepresent evolutionary psychology? They do. In the abstact: "Some of the controversy stems... from misunderstandings about the logic of evolutionary psychology..." And in the body of the paper: some critiques are based on "...misunderstandings and mischaracterizations." Straw man args. About as unimpressive as ad hominems... Memills (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Memills, I would also encourage you to re-read the Confer article and properly cite your sources. Quoting an article that claims "misunderstandings and mischaracterizations." Does not make it so. In my view, the article erects its own straw persons in its description of its critics. If you want to use the paper, you need to cite specifically how Confer et al. claim their critics to be misunderstanding them, and how they specifically address the criticisms. In my view, they gloss over the criticisms without addressing them, then go on to explain their point of view, relying on some of the very same assumptions that critics are attacking.Logic prevails (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "misunderstanding" and "misconceptions" are not necessarily straw man arguments. Confer et al. use the word "mischaracterizations" once but you neglected to mention the context. What Confer at al. actually write is: "One quantitative study of the coverage of evolutionary psychology in these texts came to three conclusions: (a) Coverage of evolutionary psychology has increased dramatically; (b) the 'tone' of coverage has changed over the years from initially hostile to at least neutral (and in some instances balanced); and (c) there remain misunderstandings and mischaracterizations in each of the texts." That was the result of one quantitative study, not Confer et al., and that study examined the coverage, not specifically criticisms, of evolutionary psychology. To give you one example: An introductory psychology textbook can contain misunderstandings and misrepresentation of some of the more creative claims of evolutionary psychology without actually criticizing the claims.

The evolutionary psychology defense section not only violates WP:Structure but also WP:Original research as Confer et al. never actually claim that criticisms are based on straw man arguments. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored this subheading per WP Response Section which states:

"An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. The latter section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic."

Also, to avoid excessive reliance on the Confer article (and its various interpretations), I have added additional relevant references. Memills (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have a section on how the topic was received. What you want is a section on how evolutionary psychologists receive the reception. A classic violation of WP:STRUCTURE, again. Btw your additional references lack page references and the attributions are highly dubious. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not "dubious" (what does that mean?) -- check them out. These are all books or articles written by academic scholars responding to critics. Memills (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Read again and pay attention to the word "attributions", as in the claims that you attribute to the sources, not the sources per se, appear dubious. The Confer et al. source which you used for your "EP defense" section said nothing about "straw men" etc. in response to the specific criticisms mentioned here and there is no reason to believe that the new sources do. Also, there is the problem of missing page references and your continued violation of WP:STRUCTURE. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is no need to revisit the "straw men" issue -- that was already covered, above. These are general books/articles that cover multiple responses to multiple criticisms. They are included as general references, not for each specific issue -- thus, no page #s required. Memills (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that you are not adding original research as you did in the past when you added a "evolutionary psychology defense" (reading WP:NPOV might help) in response to unspecified criticisms and attributed the defense to Confer et al. although the source did not support the claim. There is no evidence that the new sources support it. You should probably read WP:Citing sources in addition to the other policies I mentioned. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:AGF. Without it, feel free to read some of the books / articles referenced to verify their relevance for yourself (added bonus: it would help to make your contributions here more informed).

Again, you and Confer? We've discussed this to death. You correctly said that they didn't use the words "straw man," specifically. I agreed. But, as I again repeat myself, their prose suggested that critics indeed made straw-man type arguments. I even quoted them on this for you. Wanna see it again? Memills (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources that you added do not support the statements, hence your refusal to provide page numbers. The "evolutionary defense" section needs to be removed per WP:OR and WP:STRUCTURE. Yes, we did discuss your rather creative description of the Confer et al. paper, your belief that a mischaracterization is necessarily a straw-man argument, and the part "...misunderstandings and mischaracterizations" that you falsely attributed to Confer et al. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you object to Confer. Then I add more refs that provide rebuttals to critics. Then you say "The sources that you added do not support the statements, hence your refusal to provide page numbers." Er... these are general references that respond to many claims by critics. Tell ya what: I'll add "etc." to make this a bit more clear. Memills (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First, you violate WP:STRUCTURE by adding a "defense" by evolutionary psychologists and then WP:OR by misrepresenting Confer. Then you restore the section and add a bunch of new "rebuttals" to critics, thus violating NPOV again. "These are general references that respond to many claims by critics". You are basically adding a list of books as a recommended reading list. You do not specify which criticism are "straw men" or misunderstanding and why, you just want to get in the last word, a blanket characterization of criticism as wrong. How would you feel about a "Critics response" to your "Evolutionary psychology defense" section where we could list a bunch of book recommendations and say "Scholars have addressed many of the justification by evolutionary psychologists (see, for example, books...). Among their rebuttals are that some explanations misrepresent the criticisms, are based on an incorrect nature vs. nurture dichotomy, are based on evolutionary psychologists' ignorance of basic principles of empirical research, an overactive imagination etc." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with that. (In fact, there are a whole list of anti-EP books noted at the lede of the Criticism of evolutionary psychology page.

Do you not wish WP readers to know about books/articles by evolutionary psychologists wherein they respond to critics? Again, I repeat myself: WP policy clearly states that this section include both sides of a debate. Memills (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP policy states the exact opposite. Read WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV (throw in WP:OR and WP:COI for good measure). WP readers do not need a vacuous "rebuttal" ("oh, how they misunderstand us!") on top of the specific "rebuttals" in the subsections and they don't need a response to the "rebuttals" and a "rebuttal" to the response to the "rebuttals" and so forth. What they need is an article that explains what evolutionary psychology is and then summarizes how evolutionary psychology was received. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand?

Again, from WP:CRIT specifically related to this "Reception" section: " ...(a) section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic."

...but, again, I repeat myself. Memills (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills has added some information about the defenders or evpsych. Sonicyouth says that the structure is bad. Let's find a way to include Memills's information in a better structure. The "defenders" material represents a sort of overview (of one side). Let's balance that with "detractors" at put it at the start of the "Reception" section. Then we can have a fair structure. Start with the detractors and defenders in general, then touch on specific points in the subsections that follow. Right now there's no introduction to the Reception section, and it deserves one. Then we get to use the information that Memills has provided us, and it's no longer capping the section as if it were a conclusion. Let's figure out how best to include his information rather than trying to exclude it. Leadwind (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please shoot me; I'm editing this haunted page again. I went ahead and wrote a brief intro to the reception covering some basic criticisms from Rose and Rose, to balance Memills' pro-EP material. I could also fold his "concluding" material into the intro, where it wouldn't seem like the "last word" on the issue. Leadwind (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks Leadwind for suggesting a compromise. Memills (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just wandered to this page and, knowing EP tends to be controversial, took a look at the talk page as well. So...just reading this back and forth I understand there may be some history here and some long-term disagreements between editors. However, just in tone, Memills seems to be making more effort to compromise. Sonic and others, you may very well be right, but it helps to dial back the tone a bit. Just my $.02. I'll try to take a look at the article and see if it reads balanced. StoneProphet11 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, it looks pretty reasonable now, other than the SSSM section could probably use an EP response or two to critisms (I said the same on the main SSSM page). Otherwise I like the back and forth and think it's informative. I suspect people will usually "like" the articles on "their side" anyway. StoneProphet11 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments StoneProphet11. Fyi, here are a couple of recent articles about the controversy that you may find of interest: Misrepresentations of evolutionary psychology in sex and gender textbooks (and a Psychology Today blog post about the article: Misinformation About Evolution In Textbooks), and, The evolutionary psychology of human mating: A response to Buller's critique. Memills (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evolutionary psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509140205/http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~geherg/ep_not_evil.pdf to http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~geherg/ep_not_evil.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304105534/http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c720126/humanethologie/ws/medicus/block5/Medicus_engl_Cover.pdf to http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/~c720126/humanethologie/ws/medicus/block5/Medicus_engl_Cover.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221163333/http://www.bbsonline.org/ to http://www.bbsonline.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Coalitional Psychology heading and topic -- suggested integration with Strong Reciprocity

The Evolutionary_psychology#Coalitional_psychology section is problematic in that is based entirely on the work of one set of researchers, based on two of their publications that were not published in an evolutionary psychology related academic journal, and, the general topic already is already covered under "Strong Reciprocity." Suggest moving it there and abbreviating it. Posting here for discussion first before doing so. Memills (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Removed section -- content had insufficient relation to evol psych. More relevant to social psychology article. Memills (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A simple question?

Does this statement make any sense at all? "Evolutionary psychologists respond that they do know many things about this environment, including the facts that only women became pregnant..." Clocke (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on administrators' noticeboard

As I revisited this article, which has long been on my watchlist, after a phase of research reading, I discover that another editor here has a dismaying notice on his talk page and an active discussion of a topic ban for editor conduct. I wonder if this article is within the scope of the proposed topic ban. It seems only fair to let editors who watch this page know that these discussions are occurring, so that you may comment according to what you have observed. On my part, I hope all of us are able to establish a collaborative atmosphere here for using the best reliable secondary sources for updating this article and other articles on related topics, which are very important. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions by Panzo.8

A few suggestions I have are in regards to the section titled personality. In an essay on ukessays.com the author said, "In conclusion, both the environment and genetic configuration are essential determinants of an individual’s personality. One also has to examine the interaction between genetics and environment for a clear understanding on personality development. Different people with certain genotypes tend to blend into an environment which they deem to be suitable or comfortable. Therefore, it is possible to say that genes make the environment one will venture in. However, this can also be seen from a different point of view. Individuals, who are already born into a certain type of environment, unknowingly bring out or develop certain personality traits to blend in and fit into their environment. Thus, it is very difficult to determine the actual contributions of gene and environment to personality traits." I feel adding some of this information may be very informative to the readers. Essays, UK. (November 2013). Heredity and environment on the development of personality psychology essay. Retrieved from http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/heredity-and-environment-on-the development-of-personality-psychology-essay.php

I hope you find this suggestion beneficial. Panzo.8 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Whe = When ? or Sic ?

Can some with the capability check to see if the spellin g is coorect in this source. I do not have the appropriate program to check myself. "Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal Whe We Are The Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology". Retrieved 15 October 2013." Is it "When" or "Sic" ? Thank you.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's "Why" - see Amazon listing. I have fixed it. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)