Evolutionary Psychology (EP) does seem like quite a strange area of Science to me. It turns up some weird old findings, some of which we always suspected might have been the case, and others which go against first principles. Some of the conclusions drawn are fairly disturbing, even worrying and sometimes frankly sexist. EP has many proponents, but also a large group of detractors which include feminists amongst their number. I would like to focus here on one such.
There is a now infamous Youtube video of a Skepticon talk by the wonderful Rebecca Watson in which she criticises EP quite severely. Although I found the talk entertaining, funny and useful, it was not one of her best for accuracy, clarity or purpose. However, the storm of hate-filled bile that erupted in the aftermath of it was way out of proportion and just goes to show what cruel, selfish people can be like when they smell a "weakness". Just look at some of the sick responses to the video, in the comments. These trolls need to listen to themselves and grow up. Stop this vile abuse!
So Watson gives the subtle impression that she doesn't like EP because it comes up with some pretty horrific findings. I can understand why a staunch feminist like Watson would hate EP. I very much accept that. But just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Us atheists should know this.
This is one of the few places I disagree with Watson. I don't really think it's necessary to dismiss EP the way she attempts to do, in order to be able to effectively refute its conclusions (as opposed to its findings). Her dismissal is a bit too much of a generalisation for me. I think it's is true that some aspects of EP studies can be dubious, but this applies to virtually all other sciences as well. The Pleistoceine brain assumptions must have at least some validity. The application of data generation from modern-day humans and extrapolation back needs to be done carefully. I think certain researchers who have a track record of controversial findings should be extra dutiful in making their assumptions that they try not to stick with the male-biased or heteronormative ones!
There are quite obviously various conflicts of interest that can emerge in EP, a field still dominated by men. The "they would say that wouldn't they?" effect can be hard to overcome and I think more effort needs to be put into gently reassuring women that neutrality is guaranteed, unless we want many more women to turn away from it completely. I should not have to say that including more women in support of EP will help, not hinder, any progress it makes. The history of research pairings or groups should be checked for previous controversial findings, and maybe they should be encouraged to work with other peers rather than in their own echo chamber. After all, facts are facts. EP papers I think should be subject to peer review not just for the methods and data, but also specifically for bias in assumptions and conclusions. This approach could help re-assure us all of its veracity. In fact these rules if not already in place could be adopted by any area of science, not just EP.
I am not really doubting any of the work, data or findings from Evolutionary psychology. Apart from the assumptions which are sometimes made as I discussed, I think the science is solid. I just sometimes doubt its usefulness, relevance and the conclusions drawn as to what we should do about the findings. Using them as some men have suggested, an excuse to not challenge or improve ourselves; is lazy self-indulgence, pandering to our comfort zones, and completely lacking in moral rigour.
This is the angle of attack I would prefer that feminists used. Just because we discover that the brains of women work differently to those of men, for example, I can't see how that justifies re-inforcing gender roles or stereotypes. We need to work towards the future we think we should have, not encourage ourselves to follow our nature, as per the naturalistic fallacy, regardless of whether the Zeitgeist says it is abhorrent. I think this subject is closely tied to both the "is-ought" problem and the "fact-value distinction". Base instinct should be left where they evolved, in the caves. Carrying some part of them still today just means that men can still be bastards with pathetic willpower who can't resist their own instincts. Already knew that. Doesn't make it right.
We need to trust our own modern morality as humans. If traits evolved, they can do so again, differently this time. This could happen by natural evolution or we could find a way of genetically modifying out undesirable characteristics from the human genome. We shouldn't have to accept that what is currently true, is what should always be the case.
Another ostensibly disagreeable finding from EP is summarised here. Rape is found to be evolved into men's brains from when it was a evolutionarily favoured behaviour by the authors. OUCH. The studies in the book also suggest that rape may be evolved form of sexual gratification.
So there is at least some sexual-gratification component to rape. Wow, big surprise. I still submit that there is a significant power/dominance/control side to it as well, as it is clearly used as a weapon in some cultures. This could be a societal/cultural adaptation rather than an evolutionary one; it makes no difference, it still exists.
Well, rape might have been "natural" in the Stone Age (Pleistoceine, whatever). It was less unacceptable when we still wore loincloths, jumped at shadows and worried mainly about our next meal! I frankly don't care. It does NOT mean it can be excused nowadays. It may go some way to explaining why it happens so much, but that just shows men need to reject these base instincts and move forward using the reason of our brains and the self-control of our frontal lobes.
For me, EP is best used in the same way that we use history, as an investigative tool that informs us of past mistakes so that we don't make them again. It is a cautionary tale of how NOT to behave. It is to Science what History is to the social sciences and humanities.
It may be that the next linkage made by the strongest proponents of EP is that the notion of "choice" or "freedom" is a myth and that the decisions we make are all just the result of chemical reactions and balances/imbalances in our brains. As Sam Harris has said, there is some empirical evidence for this but as yet no clear consensus.This could then be made to make the connection with rape being "natural" to lead to it being "inevitable". Even if this were true, and I cannot accept that it is, I think this would be unfortunate and unbecoming regression to fatalism, that we would do well to avoid.
No comments:
Post a Comment