Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology/Archive 1

Should this page even exist?
I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for a point/counterpoint type discussion. It's one thing to point out, in the context of the article itself, that there is substantial criticism. It's a whole other issue to actually create an entry devoted to the debate. 196.205.127.16 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC). -

Criticisms from other fields of evolution and human behavior
Should this article include criticisms of evolutionary psychology from other fields of evolution and human behavior? Other fields could include: EPM 00:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Human behavioral ecology
 * 2) Dual inheritance theory
 * 3) Evolutionary developmental psychology

This is the least neutral page I've seen on Wikipedia. It doesn't even begin to cover all of EP's shortcomings and makes it appear as if every single criticism against EP has been conquered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.255.204 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. As stated by others, the controversies are poorly presented and treated as if they have been adequately answered by EP. The main reason why EPC needs its own page is because the issues are complex and it remains highly controversial among professional scholars. I am extremely concerned about the impressions that laypersons might get from reading this page. I am a clinical psychologist and university professor with some knowledge of the field and its critics, so I hope to do it some justice if I can find the energy to re-work it, but I am also worried that those with invested interests will maintain it as a debate page. Methinks neutrality is key. Logic prevails (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tempted to Delete
This page is ridiculous. It's like a huge evolutionary psychology apologia. Most of the criticisms are either unsourced or strawmen versions of the real arguments. A lot of the claims about the nature of the debate are unsourced, along with some of the rebuttals. Not to mention that pages like this shouldn't even exist in Wikipedia to begin with, it should be integrated into the article on evolutionary psychology (and no, I don't care if "it's hard.") The additional resources for people interested in the criticisms is buried far below the resources for the rebuttals, and is quite small. I think that betrays the obvious purpose of this page. I'll be fixing that for now (since it's odd for the counter-arguments to precede the arguments, and for the arguments themselves to be buried below the notes.) Vesperal 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading through the article again, I also saw plenty of problems with the criticisms, so I went through and tagged all the unsourced claims. I'm no longer sure what this page is supposed to be for. I put up an original research and expert needed tag, since contrary to my first impression, this articles appears to just be forum chatter that's spilled over into Wikipedia. Vesperal 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement - article is slanted to the point of being ridiculous. I wonder if pages on phrenology would be like this if that science was still fashionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this train of thought. EP is not a large enough field to have a separate article debating its merits. This article should be greatly condensed and appended to the main EP article. All criticisms and rebuttals lacking citations should be removed. Criticisms should be categorized into three or four main points. Sean Weigold Ferguson 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The criticisms section was moved to its own page from the main EP article for good reason
See the "talk" section of the main EP article. Critics of EP were turning the main EP article into a debate, and making content edits that mis-characterized the field. Rather than engage in continual edit wars, better that it be moved here so both sides can make their best case, and hash it out. I disagree with Vesperal's comment above (but don't find it surprising given that in his user profile he quotes a critic of EP). Memills 05:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts. If the information I tagged can be found in any "intro evol psych book" then please go get one and source the statements. I also still think that this debate (at least some of it) should eventually be moved back into the main article once it gets cleaned up a bit.Vesperal 23:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I only retagged one statement: "EP fully accepts nature-nurture interactionism." Although I'm pretty sure this is true, I'd still like to see this sourced.Vesperal 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Vesperal -- for a good overview of EP see the EP FAQ by Ed Hagan: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html
 * as well as his paper "Controversies surrounding evolutionary psychology" http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/papers/Controversies.pdf

I'll try to add more refs soon. Memills 05:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone else find these 'rebuttals' suspiciously shallow for a serious academic? I clicked on the 'What about learning?' FAQ answer to find the following argument: "How could an organism learn this type of information? It would have to very carefully observe lifetime reproductive outcomes for many different mateships, controlling for other variables like health, access to resources, etc. This is obviously impossible. Life is just too short to learn this kind of information, yet men have precisely the preferences predicted by evolutionary theory. These preferences must have evolved."  It wasn't atypical of the source material offered. Adhib (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Structure of the Article and Bias
I think having this page is a good idea. However, the structure of the article seems to give the appearance of a bias towards evolutionary psychology. Specifically, I'm referring to how there's a criticism of EP, followed by a rebuttal, followed by the next criticism, followed by the next rebuttal, and so forth. In this article, EP gets "the last word". I think it's a good idea to have this page, since EP is so controversial, but I'm not quite sure what would be the best way to structure it. EPM 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article actually leads like a one of the arguments from Aquinas (whose method I hope I can discuss without being accused of bias against this article), wherein he starts with a question, then sets forth first a statement that answers the question in the opposite way from what he thinks (for example, to the question, "Does God exist?" he starts with "It would seem that God does not exist, because..."). Then he makes his real argument, where he says what he really thinks ("I the contrary, I assert that..."). The point is that, in this method, the first argument is set up to fail, and the counter-argument always looks better, especially since it has the final word. This method may be very effective in proving a point, but an encyclopedia article is meant to provide unbiased information---nor do I think the question of the validity of Evolutionary Psychology so completely undisputed that one can say, "Well, this is what science has proven, whether you like it or not." Corbmobile (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Affirm Above-mentioned Criticisms

 * I tend to agree. There already exists a separate "Evolutionary Psychology" page, and the case for EP should be made there. There is definitely some sort of dialectic happening here with the criticisms of EP always rebuffed.

This article is a particularly fine example of how wikipedia can be misleading – a complex topic like this requires the efforts of an expert (not just in the science but in encyclopaedic writing) – perhaps luckily, it seemed clear to me that no such person has contributed here before I invested time in reading it... A quick glance reveals what is to all appearances a systemic bias. An article about the criticisms of something shouldn't list them and then purport to debunk each one – it smacks of one-sidedness (what's more, it serves to diminish a casual reader's initial interest in the topic). Consider that if, in reality, all such criticisms have been so thoroughly dealt with, there is no 'controversy' and hence no real requirement for this article in the first place! Rewrite or restructure it in the form of an encyclopaedic article if it is to be taken at all seriously as such. Fixbot (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Slant
As Fixbot says above, "An article about the criticisms of something shouldn't list them and then purport to debunk each one – it smacks of one-sidedness", is absolutely correct. Comments? Chet Ubetcha (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As of September '8, this the format lays out the dimensions of the controversy well - criticisms are outlined, followed by some limiting counter-criticism. The structure doesn't suggest (to me, at least) that the counter-criticisms are conclusions, just because they come last. Baadog (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Under "Criticisms of Inherited/Modular Psychological Traits," Some of the criticisms are listed, but it is followed by the statement:
 * "For some research done to address these criticisms, see [3] Daly and Wilson's response to Buller's criticism above, Delton, Robertson, Kenrick (2006) The Mating Game Isn’t Over: A Reply to Buller’s Critique of the Evolutionary Psychology of Mating. [4], Miele (2006) Evolutionary Psychology is Here to Stay: A Response to Buller. [5], and Bryant (2006) On Hasty Generalization About Evolutionary Psychology [6]."

Firstly, it is not at all clear that anything in these articles 'address' these criticisms - yet it is stated as if they do. If such a statement is going to remain, it needs to be shown exactly how the criticisms are addressed in the articles. Secondly, it seems unfair that the 'critic' side needs to state the criticisms in this article while the EP side simply glosses over the issue and lists articles as if that dismisses the criticisms- the reader needs to sift through those various articles themselves, which does not seem fair; the presentation is therefore biased in favor of EP. I am tempted to delete this section if it is not fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic prevails (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for critics of EP: Please make substantive contributions
There are a few of the same folks who keep re-appearing on this page who clearly have an ax to grind with EP. Their approach seems to be to repeatedly tag the page as in dispute, or complain about the structure of the article or the rebuttals to criticisms, yet they do not make substantive contributions to the page. Please, if you wish to contribute, take the time to do the background reading, and then make worthwhile contributions. If an argument can be improved, do so. If there is a missing reference, find one.

As a professor with a specialization in EP, I can tell you that those of us in this field have thoroughly evaluated the criticisms -- and many of them are either uninformed mis/dis-information about EP, or they are simply straw men (i.e., arguments that suggest that evolutionary psychologist believe something that they do not). It doesn't help the critics' case when it is clear that they have little knowledge of the field. However, we are certainly willing to review and seriously consider informed criticism, and we encourage its discussion here. Memills (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Memills; you say this, but then I try to make the article less slanted and you revert the changes back to this EP biased article (and on a 'controversy' page no less). For example, I deleted:


 * "The history of debate from the evolutionary psychology perspective is covered in detail in books by Segerstråle (2000) and Alcock (2001)); also see a recent overview of EP with rebuttals to critics in Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. Full text, as well as Controversies surrounding evolutionary psychology by Edward H. Hagen, both in D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley)."


 * I deleted this because readers interested in the 'history of the debate' will get a version that is entirely from the perspective of EP. If you are going to keep this, I would like you to add "... a history of the debate from the perspective of EP proponents" or something to that effect. After which, I will add references from critics who provide their view of the 'history of the debate.' I thought the whole thing unnecessary at the start of the article when you use the same references later on.


 * I also deleted: "The main critics are today perhaps the philosophers of science David Buller author of Adapting Minds and Robert C. Richardson author of Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology." My reasons for doing so is that again, it makes it sound as if those are the only 'main' critics, that aside from these two outliers, the rest of the field is in agreement with EP, which is not true at all. They are some of the few that bothered to write entire books refuting the logic and method of the field, but they are by no means the only ones. Again, I could have listed all of the other critics here as being 'main', but it would be unnecessary - I was going to add points here and there in the sections below. Again you reverted by changes in a direction that serves your bias.


 * I also changed the wording of: "Criticisms of the field have also been addressed by scholars" to "Some criticisms of the field have also been addressed by proponents of evolutionary psychology," but another user reverted those changes as well. The previous sentence makes it sound as if all criticisms have been addressed and that they were addressed by 'scholars,' that might include the entire field of psychology, but that is not the case.


 * My efforts here seem wasted. You wonder why none of the 'critics' bother to contribute? Its because there is a clear bias toward EP in a page that is supposed to represent the side of the controversy. If you cannot keep this page unbiased - then delete it. And if you won't let me re-work it into something neutral and intelligible, then I will just spam it with critical articles without deleting or re-working anything. Logic prevails (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A few points:

1) I don't have an ax to grind with anyone. I'm sorry you feel that way. I actually appreciate the link you posted above, it cleared a lot up for me.

2) The paragraphs I discussed above were singled out for their vagueness. Are you seriously suggesting that I wade through years of the vast bulk of EP literature to find an argument similar to the one under Reification, for instance? The person who added it should come back and reference it, or someone who is familiar with the argument should add the reference. I have no freaking clue and wouldn't even know where to start.

3) It doesn't matter if the criticisms are good. They just need to be notable criticisms and referenced. Many criticisms of EP are complete nonsense, but they should still be addressed, given the ruckus they tend to stir up.

4) "Thorough evaluation of the criticisms" is great and all, but not if it isn't on this page and it isn't referenced. If these evaluations extended beyond coffee house banter and into actual published material, then it needs to be in the article.

5) There may be some concern with the fact that I am criticizing and article on a topic that I am clearly uninformed about. I would just like to remind everyone, that as an uninformed reader, I am the target audience of this article. If it isn't encyclopedic enough for people like me, then we have a problem.

6) Memills is no doubt getting frustrated being, effectively, the only contributor to this article. I'm sure he has better things to do with his time than safe guard this article and listen to people whine on the talk pages. We need to find some way to draw in more people who understand the science of EP and people who are actually critics of EP.

7) I'm going to be bold and change the structure of the article myself, since that is something I can do. Vesperal (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, all done. I removed the "criticism" and "rebuttal" headings and evened out some of the language to make it clear within the section when a point and counter-point was being made. Added some Fact and an tag (see my 6 March 2008 comment on why). One problem I noticed is that the Criticism section on the Sociobiology page seems to be nothing but a link to this page. Not sure what to do about that since this is almost all new research being talked about, I sure don't want to get into an edit war at that page. I'm happier with how the page looks anyway. Suggestions welcome on how to solve the problem of the lack of contributors.Vesperal (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "counter argument" headings. I have no particular opinion on EP (i have a biology degree, and have just started my first module of psych for fun), but these headings just made this article needlessly argumentative. Also some of the "arguments" didn't really address the others points, so it seemed more like a discussion to me, which flows far better as prose without seperating paragraphs into pro and anti. If the reader has to be told that a sentence is a counterpoint, then it probably isn't - this would be obvious from the text itself, and the ideas therein.Dillypickle (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for criticism of EP
Here's one: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe15socl.html#sclscblgy. GregorB (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed reference
In an edit just now, I removed the statement, as well as its attached reference:
 * "These "facts" asserted by Gould have been widely disputed."

Tstrobaugh (who recently added this sentence), if you read this, what I want to know is what "facts" asserted by Gould you are referring to? Why are "facts" in scare quotes? Does one citation justify "widely"? I can't access the cited article as it is not publicly available, so maybe giving more information about the disputations would be useful. 130.58.248.241 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Just-So Stories"
The quote from Noam Chomsky does not have the appropriate rebuttal. The rebuttal is that whether or not cooperating or defecting is advantageous from an evolutionary perspective depends on the size of the social groups that are formed. There is a mathematical algorithm to determine the group size given certain levels of cooperation but I do not have it on hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.148.31 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical, meaning let's tap this one into the long grass?

 * EP, as does psychological science in general, operates under the assumption that human behavior has causal roots.

Memills, there's a gap in the rebuttal here that I wonder if you can offer a filler for - I'd love to go and educate myself! For now, the statement assumes that the only phenomena that can be admitted into a causal relation with a material event must themselves be 'material'. This seems philosophically presumptuous (Donald Davidson springs to mind ). I'm sure you guys have got it covered, but could you help an old axe-grinder see where? Adhib (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

best critical source?
What's the best reliable source that says EP is bunk? We should summarize what it says in the lead. Leadwind (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

better lead
This page deserves a regular lead just like WP:LEAD says. The lead should be suitable or close to suitable for use as the "Controversy" section on the main EP page. Leadwind (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section and Listing References
Can someone please tell me how it makes any sense to 'spam' the introductory paragraph with references to articles? MeMills, I think you are the main culprit here... can you tell us why you feel the need to put them here versus taking a bit more time to show the reader how the references address the specific criticisms? I think it would make more sense to reference them as they apply to the main headings below, and then add them to the 'further reading' sections at the bottom. If we are going to reference an article, we should show how it relates to the specific sub-topics in the article. Doing otherwise is misleading and academically lazy. I have read the Confer et al. article - it does not even come close to addressing the main issues, but if someone wants to take the time to reference it in the ways you think it does, I would be happy to point out (with other peer reviewed sources) how they do not. If the consensus of others is to keep adding references to the first couple paragraphs, I will be happy to add a bunch more from the 'critics perspective.' However, for the same reasons stated above, I would think that inappropriate. Logic prevails (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you are talking about the "Controversies related to Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology" section with text like "Also see recent overviews...". Text like that is not appropriate for an article. I would not recommend quickly deleting the current text, but in due course it should be rephrased to be of the form "Such and such is a fact/assertion[ref]" where the external link is used as the [ref]—that is, useful information from the source is added to the article, and the source is used as a reference (and it would have to satisfy WP:IRS). Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has deleted a reference from the 'critic' side and moved a relevant quote down to the notes section. This against NPOV policy. Logic prevails (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote the part about NPOV that I violated. You don't need a block quote if a sentence will do. That's good writing. Leadwind  (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a very thorough and important quote from the perspective of a neuroscientist. By effectively omitting it or moving it to the bottom of the page, you serve to keep the page biased in favor of the proponents of EP. There are plenty of block quotes on the main EP page citing the proponents - I cannot just go in there, summarize them, and delete at random. Also, if that was you who took out the Wallace book, then shame on you! While MeMills gets away with listing every book or article in the world for the proponents, the critics side gets deleted!? Logic prevails (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just stopping by, why is this article full of rebuttals?
My God it's a minefield!! Do we need a page titled "Critics of Evolutionary Psychology Critics" linked here? Can't we keep discussions to the Talk page, and Criticisms here? It's a page about criticisms, they don't need to be rebutted. That's what the much bigger main page is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.27 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a "Critics of Evolutionary Psychology" page. It is the Evolutionary psychology controversy page.  Describing issues from both critics and proponents' perspectives is appropriate. Memills (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Memills is right. The following statement is false: "It's a page about criticisms, they don't need to be rebutted." The topic of the page is the controversy, and the controversy has two (or more) sides. Editors commonly think that a page like this is meant as a catalog of criticisms where only one side is covered, but that's not right. Every WP page should cover all notable sides of its topic, even a page like this one. And it should cover only notable criticisms, not every criticism that anyone can name. And it should cover the criticisms roughly in proportion to how our sources cover them. Leadwind  (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They should most certainly not be "rebutted" the article should neutraly describe the nature of the disagreement and not side with any side. A rebuttal necessarily implies that the criticism is deflected. There should be no rebuttalsd in this article there should be descriptions of critiques and descriptions of responses to that critique.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is almost better to leave it like it is... a page where EP gets to defend itself (only vaguely - by referring to external articles that supposedly 'address' the criticisms) while critics are glibly characterized and misrepresented. A critical reader should recognize this in the structure of the page. It is most telling that on an 'EP controversy' page, many of the references are pro-EP.


 * I think some editors are fearful that adding material will only turn the page into POV edit warring and further mis-representation of what the critics are actually saying. It might be better for intelligent readers to 'read between the lines' based on the structure and content of the page. Logic prevails (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Just-So Stories" part is full of personal opinions
I think the article is supposed to be based on controversies that are written and discussed by experts, but the "just-so stories" part has 3 consecutive big paragraphs of personal opinion that someone wrote with no references, and at the end there's a meager reference to someone's thesis. These 3 paragraphs (starting with the phrase "for example") have arbitrary assumptions and terms like "in reality" and affirmations as if what it says is a proven fact. This is a text about a controversy, no opinion here is final, specially because it regards psychology and this science's researches are not about facts, they're about hypotheses, evidence, and probability. I suggest those 3 paragraphs get deleted or totally rewritten.--Lestermann11 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The individual who added this material, which is his own personal, not published, research, is also adding the same text to several pages, including the Evolutionary  psychology main page, the Inclusive fitness page, and perhaps others.  See my discussion with him re this on the EP talk page.  These paragraphs need to be either removed, or edited. There is also counter-evidence to his assertions that should be referenced as well. Memills (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I at least wrote this counter-evidence there, and referenced Buss (2005): "Evolutionary psychologists argue that, opposed to these criticisms of kin selection theory applied to humans, an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence corroborating human kin selection has been found, using different methods of study." That argument appears in different parts of The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook, and the chapters were written by different authors, it's not just one author saying it. So I hope my contribution was ok. HOWEVER, if those 3 paragraphs get removed, maybe this information won't exactly be needed there anymore.

And yes, he wrote the same thing in the "kin selection" page too, but someone else removed it. --Lestermann11 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lesterman, if that was you making some of those changes I would just make a couple of suggestions. Firstly, be careful to use neutral language. "Misguided critics" is not going to fly here - especially when you are trying to make a point of inapropriate wording in the other direction. Secondly, take some time to carefully write your additions... "specially" is not a word. It is well known among invested editors that this page is poorly structured and biased in all sorts of ways... state your concerns on the talk page and recruit some people to help you out with it. If there is a problem with references, insert "citation needed" tags or make a stronger case as to why it should be removed altogether. The problematic paragraphs have plenty of references... whoever wrote it was probably too lazy to add them. Add some 'citation needed' tags and I'll see what I can do.


 * MeMills - please don't start something when there is no need. You have been accused of adding your own research as well, and from what I can tell, it was permitted to stay despite the fact that you clearly mis-cite research and have not been able to defend yourself on such accusations. Logic prevails (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First, specially IS a word (refer to Merriam-Webster dictionary, Longman dictionary, or Oxford dictionary for example). What isn't a word is "inapropriate", which you wrote, but this talk page is not about English grammar. Second, you deleted a sentence I wrote which wasn't biased at all and was contributing to the controversy, so I kindly suggest you first discuss it here before deleting it. And third, "misguided critics" wasn't in the sentence you deleted and wasn't in what I wrote; it was in one of the chapters I based the sentence on, and I took it out, because I don't view the critics as misguided, I'm happy to accept their view, and also because I agree that that kind of phrasing does not fit WP. My addition that you deleted stated that EP simply argues in favor of kin selection based on empirical evidence, I never said their point was A PROVEN FACT, contrary to the author of the 3 paragraphs above mine (which I was criticizing, but haven't deleted because I'm first bringing it to discussion here.)

Also, citing your own research is not wrong, given the fact it's published in a journal (Holland's isn't), and given the fact you don't word its argument as if it were final (which Holland did)

And as for the 'citation needed' tags, yours is a good suggestion, I'll put them there again.--Lestermann11 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies... I clearly jumped the gun there. I often see 'specially' used more informally and I am not used to seeing it in this kind of context. This page is riddled with problems... largely due to individual editors jumping in there and turning it into an opinionated blog. That's probably where my overreaction was coming from. I did not realize that Holland added all of that material - I agree with you, it is problematic and it should probably go.


 * In a couple of weeks (when I am done teaching), I hope to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and begin reworking it into something more neutral. I have read a lot of what the critics have been saying... there are many important points missing from this page and I believe the EP responses can be integrated into a coherent discussion without it appearing like a blog (e.g. each point countered with a "however," "but," or "on the contrary"). I would welcome help from anyone looking to improve the page. Logic prevails (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh that's good news! I think that way it will be clearer and more neutral. Well, I'm willing to help with what I can, I've been accompanying the debate between evolutionary psychologists and other areas (social and cognitive, mainly) about whether modules are domain-specific, domain-general, innate, innately-channeled, or not innate at all. Sorry if I was somewhat rude in my last post here, I was just astonished that some parts of the article are still written in a way that sounds like they are absolute facts.--Lestermann11 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

purpose of this page?
"The purpose of this article is to outline the various scientific, political and philosophical criticisms of that have been leveled against evolutionary psychology, as well as responses to these criticisms."

Who says that? It's bizarre. The purpose of a WP page is to describe the topic as it is reported in our best sources. The purpose of this article should be to describe the EP controversy, as covered in RSs. I understand that EP detractors want a place where they can list all their grievances, but that's what a personal blog is for. WP is for describing topics in line with how the best sources describe them. Leadwind (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you have a problem with here. No one is wanting to use this page as a blog. On the evolutionary psychology page, you argue for using reliable peer reviewed articles or books that describe the discipline. On this page, we should be able to use peer reviewed articles or books describing the critiques. If evolutionary psychologists in turn have peer reviewed refutations from a reliable source, then we describe that as well, though I will not stand for two lines at the end saying "EP's respond that the above arguments are strawmen or misunderstandings." Editors who want to work on this page are going to have to do better than that. Logic prevails (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal
Evolutionary psychology controversy → Criticism of Evolutionary psychology

This article conglomerate criticisms of evolutionary psychology, not controversies about it. A controversy about a subject is not a criticism, a controversy is based on an incident (most of the time) that occurred with the subject, while criticism is comments based on parts of the subject that are seen to not be proper. Criticism can also include positive criticism, but most criticism articles feel that positive criticism is already expressed in the main articles as it is. Anyways, to make this fall in line with Category:Criticisms, which I just added to the article (should have been there in the first place), I feel that this article should be changed to a title that better reflects its content, as the article is not about controversies that have occurred in evolutionary psychology, but about criticisms of the subject as a whole. Silver seren C 10:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We are more accurately describing criticisms here and the page title should reflect that. Logic prevails (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objections if this better conforms to WP policies. However, I do think that word "controversy" is appropriate since it involves not only scientific criticisms, but also personal ("I just don't like it"), political, philosophical, and even religious objections.
 * Seren notes that "criticism can also include positive criticism, but most criticism articles feel that positive criticism is already expressed in the main articles as it is." I don't feel that "positive criticism," or rebuttals, are covered on the main EP page, so I think these should be included.  This "controversy" is highly related to the Nature vs. Nurture controversy -- in fact, IMO, most of the controversy is covered under that topic heading.  It is a clash of fundamental assumptions about human nature, evolution itself, the relevance of evolution to psychology, and the interaction (or lack thereof) of genetic vs. environmental causality.  IMO, many of these issues are pretty well resolved in psychological science already (it is never nature vs. nurture, it is always an extremely complex interaction of both).  Other issues, such as more domain general vs. domain specific brain modules and the degree to which they are facultative (subject to modification by variations in typical developmental influences), are legitimate scientific controversies, and, IMO, these deserve greater emphasis and discussion of these issues, both pro and con. Memills (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let's move the religious and political arguments to a separate 'controversy' page... personally, I find that they distract from the real criticisms. The philosophical arguments need to stay, since good science uses logical (i.e. philosophical) reasoning as the starting place for hypothesis testing. Evolutionary psychologists assume that their 'definition of the mind' is correct, though defining the mind has been the turf of philosophers for centuries... philosophical arguments need stay. I agree with MeMills (imagine that!), that the most notable criticisms are with regard to the theoretical assumptions adopted by the field (e.g. domain-specificity vs. domain general, knowledge of the EEA, how culture/learning is interpreted by EPers, etc.) Some very relevant criticisms have been made with regard to the theoretical assumptions underlying the field... regardless of how 'sound' the research is, specious assumptions will taint interpretation of the data. That is what we should be focusing on. Logic prevails (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be one page, not two. I support the merge, but I would prefer we merge the criticisms onto the "controversy" page because "controversy" is a broader topic than just half of the controversy: criticisms. Leadwind  (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seren has renamed the page to "Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology." As I noted above, I prefer "The Evolutionary Psychology Controversy" because it is broader.   However, if we wish to change the name, there is so much overlap with the Nature versus nurture debate here.
 * I would suggest moving material here is that is really more relevant to that broader debate to that page (or, if it is already covered on that page, delete it here). If the focus of this page is now specifically on criticisms of EP, those criticisms should be more narrowly focused on EP, and distinct from those issues involved nature vs. nurture debates.   For example, the EP hypotheses re modularity and the degree to which psychological adaptations are generally more obligate or facultative are appropriate here.  General issues of free will, genetic determinism, adaptationism in general, are really embedded in the larger nature vs. nurture controversy.
 * Now, I anticipate that those with a critical / negative view of EP will stridently object to deleting or moving any material off of this page. So, my recommendation is either (a) keep the topic of this page very broad and retain the old name "EP Controversy" or (b) narrow the focus of this page to those criticisms/debates that are more narrowly relevant specifically to EP, and call the page "Criticisms of EP."  Memills (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to hear you out here... what sections/paragraphs are you looking to remove? My only concern here is that evolutionary psychologists have a very different perspective on how nature and nurture interact... while you (as a proponent of EP) may see some of the criticisms as broad and non-applicable to EP, others may not. You may not be able to move it on grounds that it applies more broadly. Logic prevails (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Below are my suggestions -- open for discussion. Note:  The MOVE suggestions below are not suggestions that mention of these topics not be included here -- rather, that they are mentioned briefly with links out to the Nature versus nurture debate page, and other relevant pages. Sorry for formatting issues.  Memills (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

MOVE.1.1.Evolutionary.Psychology.and.Defining.the.‘Mind’

.................Note:.criticisms.of.the.computational.theory.of.mind.are .....................not.necessarily.criticisms.of.EP

....KEEP.1.2.Criticisms.of.inherited/"modular".psychological.traits

........MOVE?.1.2.1.Behavior.and.inheritance

........MOVE?.1.2.2.The.Reification.Fallacy.--.kinda.lame.criticism,.IMHO

........KEEP:.1.2.3.Problem-specific.Modularity.vs..General.Purpose.Problem.Solvers

........ADD.SUBTOPICS:?..

..................--.degree.to.which.psychological.adaptations.are.generally.

.....................facultative.or.obligate.

..............--.evo-devo.vs..EP..

....................."evo-dev".places.more.emphasis.on.interaction.of

.....................of.psychological.adaptations.with.developmental.processes

....KEEP.1.3.Criticisms.of.Method

........KEEP.1.3.1.The."Environment.of.Evolutionary.Adaptedness"

........KEEP.1.3.2."Just-So.Stories"

........KEEP?.1.3.3.Ethnocentrism.--.not.really.a.valid.criticism.IMHO,.but.can.keep.if.others.think.so.

........MOVE?.1.3.4.Reductionism.--.very.broad.topic,.not.specific.to.EP.

....MOVE.1.4.Criticisms.of.adaptationism..--.pretty.broad.topic,.applicable.to.evol.biology.as.well

........MOVE.1.4.1.Adaptive.explanations.vs..environmental,.cultural,.social,.and.dialectical.explanations

..............--.IMHO:.this.is.a.straw.man./.false.dichotomy

........??.1.4.2.Adaptive.explanations.vs..other.evolutionary.mechanisms

..............--.like.what?

....MOVE.1.5.Political.and.Ethical.Issues.--.these.are.very.broad.topics,.not.specific.to.EP

........MOVE.1.5.1.Free.Will

........MOVE.1.5.2."Is".and."Ough


 * I am not sure where to start with this... You already had it moved from the main page and you are asking to again 'move' (i.e. delete) a lot here. I am not sure how you can seriously propose that we move 'Ev Psych and Defining the Mind', since it is arguably the largest critique. I am not going to wast my breath convincing you of that - I think it should definitely stay. Really, you are only presenting a list of things you would like to have removed, without a detailed rationale as to why. How about you take what you view as the most problematic/irrelevant section for starters... explain to the editors why it should be regarded as such, then we make a move to keep it, change it, or remove it. Personally, I think the later sections on Political/Ethical Issues, Free Will, and Is/Ought could be drastically reduced or even removed. I think if you have any ground to stand on, it would be with regard to those sections. Logic prevails (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to make this decision based on policy. The fact that a criticism applies to other areas besides EP cannot be grounds for removing it.  The question here - as on the EP page, is original research.  On the EP page some material is about the theory of evolution.  the problem is not that it is too broad and should be moved to another page, the problem is that some of this material comes from sources writing about evolution and not EP.  Any source that explicitly says something about the relationship between evolutionary theory in general and EP in specifici is relevant to the article on EP.  Same goes for the Controversies article. If any of the sections Memills wants to remove are from sourced that do not mention EP, I agree they should be removed.  But if they are from sources explicitly addressing EP, then they must stay. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree - that would be a sensible way of looking at it.Logic prevails (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we agree that "Political/Ethical Issues, Free Will, and Is/Ought could be drastically reduced or even removed" -- shall we start there first?  Who would like to take on that task?   After that, we can try to work out agreement on the other sections.  Memills (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal??
The Evolutionary Psychology page doesn't list any of the criticisms, or any of the many critical references. To keep things balanced I propose we either, 1) add critical references to the EP page, or 2) remove the rebuttal references from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there are a few critical references at the bottom of the main EP page (I am not willing to fight for anything more right now), however I am very concerned, as I have stated before, about the structure of this one. It is essentially worded as an EP-apologia, as had been pointed out by others. This page should be about criticism, not about a 'point-counterpoint' defense for EP. At the very least, I would like to see 'rebuttal references' that actually address the specific criticisms. Too often, in this article, very specific criticisms are followed by... "but refer to counter-arguments in Confer, et al." - editors do not bother showing how these references address the specific criticisms, and worse, the supposed source material often fails to even mention them. I have tried to point this out and make appropriate changes, but a couple of editors keep reverting the edits. On top of all that, it would seem that there is a lot of 'rebuttal' material that is nothing more than uncited original research (i.e. a counter-response written by one of the EP-biased editors). Logic prevails (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As discussed in the section above, there was consensus that this page should focus on specific criticisms of EP, rather than broader issues that are really part of the larger nature vs. nurture debate. A listing of specific criticisms of EP (along with EP responses) is appropriate here. The more general nature vs. nurture issues (such as free will, genetic determinism, reductionism, etc.), can be discussed on that page.  Those larger debates are also relevant to other disciplines, including neuroscience, evolutionary biology, philosophy, etc.  Memills (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * From an evolutionary psychologists' version of reality, many of these criticisms are probably construed in the way that you describe above, but this page is about describing the theoretical and scientific realities of those criticizing your field. If a critic lodges a critique and mentions 'evolutionary psychology,' it should be noted here.


 * P.S. my comment about using rebuttal citations that do not address the criticism in the source material is mostly directed at you. Would you mind going through them and providing proper citations or showing how it is addressed in the source material (providing page references). Logic prevails (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Any legitimate study or breakthrough?
This might seem petty but I'm not sure that there is any evolutionary psychology study which is considered legitimate (or at least not highly flawed) by most scientists outside the field of evolutionary psychology. If someone can point to one I'd be much obliged. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good question. Please see the EP section on Encyclopedia Britannica Online, here. The authors are not evolutionary psychologists, but they consider EP findings to be legitimate. If EB thinks EP is mainstream, it's pretty mainstream. Leadwind  (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * CartoonDiablo, see some of the research at the free online journal Evolutionary Psychology. Also, see some of the journals listed at the bottom of the main EP page.  Unfortunately, because EP represents a paradigm change in the social sciences and because EP is also caught up in the more general nature vs nurture debate, it gets targeted in the general theoretical food fight and academic turf war. Memills (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For my part, I'd be mighty obliged if someone could provide a reference for the claim the EP studies are considered highly flawed by scientists outside EP. If that source were half as good as Encyclopedia Britannica, I'd sure pay attention. Leadwind  (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Louann Brizendine is not an EPer, but she's a therapist who uses EP to explain fundamental differences between male and female psychology (see The Female Brain and The Male Brain). And Francis Fukuyama isn't an EPer, but he uses EP to illuminate the history of civilization in his new book (read online). So it seems as though EP is impressive enough to convince experts working outside the field. Trained in psychology and sociology, I used to oppose EP myself, until the evidence kept rolling in year after year. If there's a reputable source for the idea that EP is bogus, I'd like to see it. Fifteen years ago, psych textbooks were hostile to EP. These days, they tend to be balanced and neutral. EP has gone mainstream. Leadwind  (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of the article is no longer readable in a stand-alone way: it does not summarise the article in a way that the reader can understand. Almost as much space is given to unsourced counterarguments, not presented in detail in the main body of the article, as to the criticisms. As explained above and in greater detail on WP:ANI fairly recently, this article was created exactly because of the attempts at whitewashing the original article on evolutionary psychology. Aspects of the theory are regarded as controversial: only 20 words are devoted to describing the criticisms in the lead. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See the discussion in the section above, "Introduction". POV forks are not allowed in Wikipedia and the lead must be NPOV and should be a summary.Miradre (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to list the article for deletion, go ahead. However inadequate the lead, the article was created because of difficulties with the original article, which cannot be ignored, You have rewritten the lead to obscure any criticisms: that is misleading to the reader. If evolutionary psychology is not generally accepted, wikipedia does not suggest otherwise. Each section in the article deserves to be summarised by a sentence in the lede. That is wholly within wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not want to list the article for deletion. Only that it should follow WP:NPOV which is obligatory for all Wikipedia articles and also includes the lead. Again see the dicussion in the section above.Miradre (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should expand the lead to properly summarise the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre, I am confused about how you seem to interpret WP:NPOV. Your interpretation seems focused on evenly presenting 'both sides' of this contested field. It seems to focus not on neutral language, but on content neutrality. This is not how WP:NPOV works. Still, I am left curious about why there seems to be a double standard where you do not feel the need to push for content neutrality in the main EP article lead, which has hardly any mention of the controversy around this field or the main criticisms lodged against it. We editors have agreed to not flood the main EP lead with criticisms, not because there is no controversy or criticisms related to it, but because it has led to edit warring in the past, and we settled on the idea that the main EP page ought to be primarily about describing the field and a separate page has been [temporarily] created here to describe the criticisms. Yet, you seem to want to dilute the presentation of the criticisms here in a way that they are 'content neutral.' Criticisms, by their very nature are not 'neutral' - nor is the main page. Again, there appears a double standard here. On the main page, the focus is on describing the field of EP. On this page, the focus ought to be on describing the main criticisms of EP. Though of course, if EP has responded to a specific criticism, then we describe that as well. Right now most of the criticisms are worded as straw men, with EP getting the last word. Does not seem neutral to me. Logic prevails (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss another article and its lead, please do so there. I have already started a discussion on talk in the main article. Note that possible problems in another article hardly justify new ones in another article. I certainly support all articles following NPOV with no exception.
 * Regarding this article. Please read the policies Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). POV forks only expressing one view are prohibited in Wikipedia. The lead section must be NPOV and should be a summary. There is no exception for this area.
 * This article still has very large problems with much unsourced and dubious material. I will remove this. When finished and we see what remains I suggest writing a somewhat longer lead. But still neutral and including both criticisms and support.Miradre (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I cannot reason with you. I am not sure how you can just show up here and delete the lead without consensus. Manus worked very hard on that lead and as far as I can tell, you just erased it. Come to think of it, I think Manus had issues with you as well. I have been trying to find a way to revert your changes, but in the way that you edited (in 'chunks'), I cannot seem to easily revert. Can someone else help me find the original and restore it? If you keep vandalizing this page, I am going to suggest we report you. Logic prevails (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Leadwind and Memills support me. See above. There is no justification for restoring a lead not following NPOV. Respect Wikipeda policies. Please also try to be civil.Miradre (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also the the main article. I have shown another model there for the criticisms section which is now very long with counter-arguments added. We could do something similar here. But to go back to a lead that almost only have criticisms without responses is of course completely unacceptable per NPOV.Miradre (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim that the present article is neutral. I found a balanced account by an expert in the philosophy of biology here (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy). Unlike the present article (or its parent article Evolutionary psychology) it does not adopt a black and white approach. It makes it clear that certain aspects of EP can equally well be explained by several other theories. I am not quite sure why Stephen Downes' article has not been used a source. At the moment primary sources have been used and some of the text from these added recently fails WP:V on closer inspection. Mathsci (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The sources I have added are not primary.Miradre (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Free will section not about criticism of EP
The free will section is a discussion of the implications of EP not a criticism of it. There is criticism of ethical positions based on an evolutionary perspective but this is tangential to questions of the validity of EP itself. I think this section belongs in the EP article. Joja lozzo  21:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. Logic prevails (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem-specific Modularity vs. General Purpose Problem Solvers
This title does not make sense and dilutes the real argument by creating a straw-man false alternative. The critics here are arguing about massive or mostly massive modularity. They do not need to hold an alternative position of 'a general purpose mind' any more than a critic of Nazism should hold an alternative of Marxism, Communism, or Capitalism. Miradre, I think you are editing outside of your area of expertise here. I know the Confer article quite well and I think you are making a caricature of it to suit your position. Logic prevails (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your change to text is incorrect and misleading. You removed the argument that the non-modular theory has produced no predictions or confirmations. It is (at least) 3 separate arguments, not the same argument. You misunderstand the third argument which is not about superfast reactions but instead, for example, that one may feel jealousy if not realizing that sexual infidelity may lead to uncertain parental status.Miradre (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing misleading there. The confer article talks specifically about domain-general rationality, not some domain-general theory. I am not aware of ANY psychologist that advocates a totally domain-general theory. Thus, the statement "the non-modular theory has produced no predictions or confirmation," is a strawman, since there is no "non-modular theory," so no, there would be no predictions from a theory that does not exist. And they don't speak in the article about a "non-modular theory" - they speak about domain-general rationality (there is a difference). I understand the the third argument quite well. I was trying to indicate that the responses were too fast to be rational, and were thus argued to be unconscious - I think you are trying to say the same. Feel free to re-word that sentence in the way that you see fit. Logic prevails (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After re-reading your original post, I am not sure how anyone can miss the fact that you were trying to set up a strawman based on a misinterpretation of the Confer article. . Your 'numbered' points were essentially attacking a non-modular model of the mind, which as I already pointed out, does not exist, and is not how authors were describing it in their article. Logic prevails (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They speak about domain-general rationality. Does not change the points I made if we change the wording. It is several different criticisms. Not one. You removed the argument that domain-general rational thought has not been used to predict or discover new empirical findings. The third argument is not about something "superfast" but that in the ancestral environment it is quite uncertain that a man would be able to form a correct theory regarding paternal uncertainty due to infidelity. I should have made that point clearer but your description is incorrect.Miradre (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The re-wording changes your intent profoundly. You used the wording 'non-modular,' which implies 'anything other than a modular mind.' Any of the other editors can do a search of the Confer document online. They do not reference 'non-modular' once. This suggests that you are misrepresenting the literature. I changed it to more accurately reflect what was said. That changes at least one of your points, since there is a difference between a 'non-modular mind,' and 'domain-generality specifically applied to rationality,' which is what Confer et al. were referring to. A couple final points: arguments do not need to be listed. And finally, if you do not like the wording of the last sentence, then reword it in a way that suits your preference, as long as you stay true to the source material. Logic prevails (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will do some rewording after adding some necessary general definitions to this section. See below.Miradre (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A Mind So Rare
Also your edit to the "A Mind so Rare" needs explaining. First, you removed the name of the author so the text is now strange. Second, the added text regarding "domain-general" and "central" is unclear. You are likely trying to say that Donald proposes several evolutionary more advanced system such as "linguistic" and "mimetic"; that does not really change the anti-EP argument, Donald is still arguing that there are general problem solver(s), not modules.Miradre (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was vague and unclear as it stood and presented a misunderstanding of Donald's position - I did not add the initial reference, so feel no need to write an exposition of Donald's work. It is clear, however, that whoever initially used Donald as a reference, did not read his book. Again Miradre, you seem to be editing outside of your area of knowledge - and this is not a place to educate editors who do not have a grasp on the material. The main debate regarding modularity is not about a totally domain-general mind versus an entirely modular one. To describe it as such is to misunderstand the arguments and misrepresent the literature. MeMills will even tell you that EPers argue about the degree of modularity and most EPers will accept some level of domain-generality. Logic prevails (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of confusion here. You seem to arguing, as seen by your changed section title, that the important new EP concept is modularity. It is not. Modularity is rather uncontroversial for peripheral systems such as low-level visual processing. Rather, it is that also the central processes are largely or all modular. The section needs a lot of clean-up for clarification.Miradre (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not for you to decide what the debate entails. Read the literature and you will be less confused. I suggest you start with the debates involving EP and modularity (i.e. Pinker's "how the mind works" and Fodor's "the mind does't work that way"). No one is arguing about low-level visual processing. You are again viewing this as a false dichotomy/choice that does not exist in the debates and does not accurately describe the true nature of the arguments. Logic prevails (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Before we go further it is apparent that we need to add some basic definitions to like for "modular", "domain", exactly what EP claims regarding modularity, and so on. I will likely do that tomorrow.Miradre (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of that section has quotations from evolutionary psychologists who have previously stated their positions - it should be quite clear what we mean by 'modular.' Logic prevails (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually differing definitions of "module" is one of the central disputes and confusions on this issue. I will make a sourced edit clarifying the situation soon.Miradre (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Critics of EP and accusations of Marxism
Referring to the 'history of the debate' section, I am looking for clarification around the following statement:


 * "Part of the controversy has consisted in each side accusing the other of holding or supporting extreme political viewpoints: evolutionary psychology has often been accused of supporting right wing politics, whereas critics have been accused of being motivated by Marxist view points."

The referenced material is: Plotkin, Henry. 2004 Evolutionary thought in Psychology: A Brief History. Blackwell. p.149.; and Ullica Christina Olofsdotter, 2000. Defenders of the truth : the battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond.

I am highly skeptical here. I suppose the heated debates in the 70-80's with regard to Sociobiology could have drawn this kind of name calling, but can someone please verify that these references have in fact accused contemporary critics of evolutionary psychology (versus critics of sociobiology) as holding Marxist views? Logic prevails (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a semantic problem here. If you take any undergraduate course in social theory from a sociology or anthropology department in any university - and many political science departments too - Marx is one of the pillars of modern social theory (along with Weber, Durkheim - some programs will also include Freud or Simmel).  A wide range of social scientists who are critical of evolutionary psychology will refer to Marx in their own work.  The question is, does this make them "Marxists?"  And the problem now is, there are different definitions of "Marxist."  If you consider class conflict to be a fundamental problem in the study of modern societies, does that make you a Marxist?  If so, most social scientists, including a great many who do not think of themselves as Marxists, are Marxists.  Or do you have to believe in the inevitability or desirability of a workers' revolution, to be a Marxist?  If so, I suspect practically none of them are Marxists.  A good dimple example is Claude Levi-Strauss, whom many anthropologists consider the most important cultural anthropologist of the latter half of the twentieth century.  In his memoir he explicitly says Marx was one of the most important influences on his thought, but NO anthropologist considers him a Marxist.


 * Marshall Sahlins, for example, wrote one of the most important critiques of sociobiology. I have many of his other books and some work or another by Marx is in most of their bibliographies.  Is he a revolutionary?  I have never seen any evidence.  Does he think Marx had all the answers? Demonstrably no; he cites several other major social theorists as having important roles in his work.  But he still cites Marx casually.  I can easily imagine a great many people thinking he is therefore a Marxist. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * SLR, thanks for your thoughtful response. I guess I am not sure what to make of the use of "Marxist views" in the context of this article. It seems very out of place and open to various interpretations. Detailed clarification of the source material (assuming it is legitimate) will probably just derail the article. I guess I am questioning whether this is a legitimate part of the controversy around EP. Logic prevails (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger
The two articles are each rather long. If they are merged the new article will be too long for some computers to handle. Then there will be pressure to split the article or to delete large sections of the content. Am I being paranoid? Could there be a conspiracy by opponents of evolution/evolutionary psychology to sabotage part of the articles?Barbara Shack (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I would like to see them merged is that the EP main article makes short shrift of the very real criticisms, whereas the EPC page is written inappropriately and is overlong. EP is controversial within the scientific community, unlike, evolutionary biology. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies page should remain a separate page
The main EP page should be about EP -- what it is. Historically, anti-EP folks have previously attempted to turn the main page into a political critique of the field. And, many of them have had a very meager understanding of the field.

It is significant that those here who promote a merger complain about bias, however, none of them contribute to the content of the article itself. If they have something useful to contribute re criticisms of the field, then do so. And, then let the other side state their counterarguments. This is an excellent way for readers to assess both sides of the controversy and to arrive at their own judgments.

There is a great deal of misinformation / disinformation about EP. This page helps to list the arguments pro and con. In addition, there are those who fall into the trap of the naturalistic fallacy and/or moralistic fallacy who simply misunderstand the field, and who may have essentially political, rather than scientific motivations. Memills (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not quibble about the existence of a separate page. I am indeed no expert on biology, psychology, but I am a high school English teacher, if that counts for anything, and I think I can tell when the structure of something is meant to support one point or another. As it stands, this article seems to be supporting the conclusion that EP is valid and that the criticisms of it are not. If the scientific community at large has come to this conclusion, then this whole section ought not to exist or at least to be so long.


 * The only thing I would suggest is that the article be trimmed down and the "criticism" "counter-criticism" format scrapped for something else...I really have no idea, maybe something like an essay, at least something different than always letting EP get the final word. Again, if the scientific community thinks those who object to EP such triflers as they seem here, then there really isn't any need for this page to exist at all. Corbmobile (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the critics of EP are scientists. The controversy is real, unlike the manufactured controversy about evolution. Chet Ubetcha (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Memills above.Miradre (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to ask yourself, "Why are laypeople and respected scientists anti-EP?" Chet Ubetcha (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

All I really asked for were references. For example, the counter-argument about EP being Ethnocentric is completely unsourced and written in a very informal way. The counter-argument to Reification is also completely unsourced and frankly looks like OR. The response to the "is-ought" criticism amounts to "no they don't". I don't really care for the idea of merging, but I would rather this article didn't look like an internet forum argument that spilled over into Wikipedia. This isn't my area of expertise, so I don't have sources on hand to fix either side of the argument. I think removing the "criticism" and "counter-argument" headers would help. It would also force the use of sources, since you would need them in order to write a coherent paragraph. No one could vaguely refer to "Evolutionary Psychologists" or "Critics". And I would still like to see more of this in the main EP article.Vesperal (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of the counter-arguments seem to be "No they don't" or "they shouldn't". I shortened one such in the Ethnocentricism section. Presumably the critics (one of which is cited and quoted) are pointing to the specific studies that they claim are culturally limited. Pointing out that some researchers compare cultures so eliminate ethnocentricism does little to counter the general criticism that the field in general often fials to do so. It needs a general reponse that says good quality theories do not do this, or that EP should not do this. The criticisms are not only about what EP aims to do, but also about the sloppy methods some researchers use.Dillypickle (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
NPOV also applies to the introduction. Which is heavily biased towards the criticisms with no replies. One solutions would be to add counter-arguments. However, this would make the already long intro even longer. Instead, I propose moving the specific arguments down to the body. Leaving only a short, general introduction that does not go into details.Miradre (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by "heavily biased towards the criticisms with no replies." I thought this page was primarily about describing the criticisms from a NPOV. I do not know why we would not summarize the criticisms (the purpose of the page) in the lead. While 'responses/replies/counter-arguments' certainly have their place, I don't think that needs to happen in the lead. Using your same logic, the intro on the main EP page can be considered "heavily biased towards describing EP, with no criticisms..." Should we avoid describing EP in the lead on the main page, unless we also scatter it with criticisms? Logic prevails (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * POV forks articles are explicitly not allowed in Wikipedia. Also "criticisms" pages must present opposing views fairly. The lead must be NPOV. Also, it is too detailed and long, it should be an overview.
 * Regarding the main article it mainly avoids going into specific arguments and evidence for and against and just gives a neutral description.Miradre (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "POV forks articles are explicitly not allowed in Wikipedia."
 * It is true that they are highly discouraged, but this is the best compromise that we've been able to come up with thus far. There have been numerous editors involved on this project - I would advise not pushing to integrate the two pages just yet. The criticisms were pushed to a separate page because trying to integrate the two led to constant edit-warring.


 * "Also 'criticisms' pages must present opposing views fairly. The lead must be NPOV."
 * Because this page is a page detailing the criticisms that have been leveled against the field, it needs to describe those criticisms. It does not matter what you consider to be 'fair.' Again, if you are taking issue with the fact that there are no rebuttals in the lead, then I would question your logic in not wanting to do the same for the main EP page.


 * "Regarding the main article it mainly avoids going into specific arguments and evidence for and against and just gives a neutral description."
 * A 'neutral description' in my view, would describe the very real controversy surrounding the field. Any 'neutral party' would acknowledge that - the lead in the main article does not. But again, this page is about detailing the CRITICISMS that have been leveled at the field. Logic prevails (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the policies Content forking and Manual of Style (lead section). POV forks only expressing one view are prohibited in Wikipedia. The lead section must be NPOV and should be a summary. There is no exception for this area. If you want to discuss another article, do that on that article's talk page.Miradre (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the policies. If you want to try to integrate the criticism into the main page, then go for it, but this has been tried before and it has only led to severe problems of editor consensus. The main page is fiercely guarded by a couple editors that seem personally invested in EP - they are arguably biased toward presenting EP in a favorable light and do not like criticism being presented on that page - that is why it was forked in the first place. Some of us have fought very hard to have anything included on the main page. With a separate page, one could at least describe some of the criticisms. Most, by the way, are quite complex and would make the main EP article even longer, which could be problematic as well. Yes, it is less than ideal to have 2 separate pages, but in my opinion, it is better than the constant edit warring that would otherwise occur. Even on this page it is hard to keep the criticisms accurately presented. If anything, this page is more biased toward a defense of EP. Numerous editors have also come to that conclusion. Logic prevails (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the above justifying breaking Wikipedia policies. Neither see I any consensus or statement on this talk page that this page should only have criticisms. Either in the body or the intro. There is nothing wrong with a page going into more details regarding criticisms. I am not arguing against such a page. But it must also include the counter-arguments. Including in the intro which must fulfill NPOV just as well as the rest of the article. Do you have policy reason for not having a NPOV lead? Miradre (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, too solve this, I propose moving the very specific arguments in the intro down to the body. Leaving only a short, general introduction that does not go into extreme details.Miradre (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved the material down to body. Leaving a brief, neutral introduction.Miradre (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Miradre. Lots of minority-view editors like to use "criticism" pages as places where they can lay out only one side of an issue, but that's contrary to WP policy. Leadwind  (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Miradre. There are a couple of editors here who think the main EP page and Criticisms page are one and the same.  They are not, as you point out.
 * Let me add, as I have noted previously in a section above, that many of the arguments presented here are really more germane to the broader nature vs. nurture debate and are only subordinately related to EP in particular. These criticisms, such as the issue of free will, "genetic determinism," etc.,  should be moved to the nature vs. nurture debate. What remains here should be criticisms that are more relevant specifically to EP (rather than to the more general nature vs. nurture debate), and the EP response to such criticisms. Memills (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors expressing concern about the neutrality of this page but not making the same efforts on the EP page suggests that they are pushing a pro-EP agenda. Joja lozzo  02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of an Innately Modular Mind
Many of the criticisms of EP have to do with their belief that nature selected a mind characterized by innately pre-specified domain-specific information-processing modules that were adapted to solve specific problems within our Pleistocene past. This section was intended to include criticisms of their 'massively' or even 'mostly-massively' assumptions with regard to modularity. However, the 'rebuttals' seem aimed, not toward defending their position, but toward attacking an entirely domain-general version of the mind. Firstly, this kind of structure does not address the criticisms pertaining to the EP position, and are thus not 'true' rebuttals to these criticisms. Secondly, it creates a false-dichotomy and strawman presentation of the critics, suggesting that the only other 'alternative' to the EP definition of the mind is an entirely domain-general one.

My suggestion, is to either cut these kinds of rebuttals, or to add a separate section beneath it titled: "Criticisms of the Domain-General Model of Mind." Let us describe EPers fighting their strawmen in a separate section. Logic prevails (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cannot separate the discussion. Neither model is definitely proven so at the moment the discussion involves weighing up the evidence for each side. Furthermore, a Domain-General Model of Mind is by no means necessarily incompatible with evolutionary theory. Miradre (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. My point is that refutation of one model does not necessitate the acceptance of what EPers seem to view as the only other alternative. It is a false dichotomy and presented in this way, is a strawman. Logic prevails (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have such a sourced argument we could add that. We do not decide what is a straw man or not.Miradre (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not necessarily trying to present an argument about EP or their critics. I am arguing that EDITORS here on WP are presenting material here in a way that creates its own strawman. That is, the so-called 'rebuttals' that EDITORS are using to defend cited critiques of the modular paradigm, do not not actually debate the points made by critics. The EDITORS instead seem to be inserting a red-herring by using EP's articles that attack a domain-general definition of the mind (which is a strawman). Again, I am arguing that the EDITORS are doing this, not necessarily the field of EP. If you need a source for that, then quote me: "The WP user Logic_prevails, argues that editors of the "Criticism of EP" page are editing the pages in a way that creates a false dichotomy within the debate and a strawman of the critics position." Logic prevails (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time seeing any actual arguments made for why the massively modular theory is wrong except Argument from authority by naming a few critics.Miradre (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am worried about copyvios by Miradre (previously she has done this in Malaria). Here is the original passage:

A phrase like "lack of phenytopic resemblance to the putative father" has barely been altered. In the article it reads, "lack of phenotype resemblance to the putative fathers". Editing like this is easy to spot because the technical quality of the English differs so much from Miradre's own written English. Please correct this immediately. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for apparently checking my edits. Changed the sentence. Anything else? Miradre (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "functionally specialized cognitive systems" is a copyvio from this source. Copyvios like that are not permitted, unless they are explicitly attributed quotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Four common words? Ok. Miradre (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole phrase "a given cognitive mechanism accepts, or is specialized to operate on, only a specific class of information" was also a copyvio, which only since I started looking have you placed in quotes. But it is not explicitly unattributed in the text at the moment'', so is still a copyvio. Here's the original:

Do you remember User:Rlevse, the former arbitrator? All his contributions were removed after systematic copyvio problems emerged. So you should be more careful. You seem to be making edits by systematically copying text without paraphrasing. That is not good at all. You must have copied that whole sentence with a mouse from one external pdf file to the wikipedia editor, not so? Mathsci (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong here. It is not a direct quote in the paper but the authors summarize the original sources. Which also refer to a sentence before this one.Miradre (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, Miradre. You placed this phrase in quotes, as a citation from the paper I linked to. Here is the edit you made. You added the quote marks after I had mentioned copyvio problems. The quote has to be properly attributed in the text by naming the authors. I propose bringing the copyvio expert, Moonriddengirl, in on this, since you appear not to acknowledge the problems of making edits by copypasting non-free content directly  onto wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The authors of the direct quote are named in the text. You just have to click the ref symbol. I suggest you take it to Copyright problems for clarification if you wish.Miradre (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyvio occurred here, at 16:35 when you changed one word (specific <--> limited) from the above phrase and removed the commas. This you did knowingly and only added quotes and restored the exact phrase after I had pointed out copyvios problems. In that case I hadn't yet noticed the problem there. In adding the quote marks you did not attribute the exact phrase to the authors Frankenhuis and Plueger in the text. Since your responses have been evasive, while at the same time you have clearly been copying non-free content directly without paraphrasing, I will raise these problems with your edits directly with Moonriddengirl. Some acknowledement of error on your part would probably help. Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously that text needed quote marks. I added them myself without prompting from you. The text is attributed Frankenhuis and Ploeger by a cite doi template. The last days your almost only activity on Wikipedia has been wikihounding and harassing me by following me around to pages you have never made an edit before to and making complaints and reverting my edits. As well as to several different noticeboards. This is just another attempt at harassment.Miradre (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre, the copyvios are clear enough and are your sole responsibility. I am going to ask Moonriddengirl to look at this. Your copyvios were only detected because of my vigilance. Even now there are the problems with direct attribution in the text, which you have not acknowledged. Mathsci (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Having looked up Quotations it does state that a footnote is not enough. I will fix this. It would have been easier if you had quoted or linked directly to this policy.Miradre (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I told you what the policy is—quotations have to be explicitly attributed in the text—and wrote this twice. The rules are linked to WP:COPYVIO. For text they can be found here: Non-free_content. Note that it says,  "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Usually I paraphrase. However, if a description by an author is particularly well written (eg about a painting or a piece of music), then it is more appropriate to quote. Sometimes, in writing controversial articles, a direct quote is necessary. However, in this article I see no need for quotes. Please replace those quotes by paraphrasing the text, making it less technical if possible, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial article. The quote is not technical. It is one sentence. Not easy to paraphrase.Miradre (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop misquoting me; I was simply telling you something anecdotal. The rules I linked to have precedence. That text can be paraphrased and, even if it takes you a longer time than a native English speaker, you should do so. Why should the rules be any different for you? Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One sentence or a few words is hardly "Extensive".Miradre (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean, not extensive to bother to put quotation marks and proper attribution? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not.Miradre (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another WP:COPYVIO here. What does Miradre think she's doing? Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, you seem to be somewhat selective in your attention. You did not mention the lack of direct attribution in this edit by Logic prevails: .Miradre (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with that diff? Does it also contain a WP:COPYVIO? I have asked Moonriddengirl to look at your edits. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem is that Miradre does not understand what plagiarism is. As an encyclopedia we must follow some common legal principles but these also operate within an academic context. Unschooled editors might have trouble understanding our policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor biases and the dogma of positivism
Miradre seems intent on pushing a certain view here. She is unfamiliar with this area and is just collecting crap studies to bolster support for EP. With Miradre, MeMills, and Leadwind working hard to push the views of EP, I am feeling a bit overwhelmed. I need others to help present some of the criticisms in a fair way, otherwise I am outta here.

I just want to point out some flaws in the study that Miradre cites...

"A 2007 United States study examined the political views of PhD psychology students. It found that those who self-identified as adaptationists were much less conservative than the general population average. There was no difference compared to non-adaptationists students. Non-adaptationists expressed a preference for less strict and quantitative scientific methodology than adaptationists."

First of all, the study was done by evolutionary psychologists. Secondly, the questions that they used were admittedly biased in a direction to polarize:
 * "So as not to bias results against the ARC hypothesis, we designed the items to be slightly biased (if at all) toward encouraging responses that appear politically conservative (e.g., instead of asking participants their degree of agreement or disagreement with the statement, “Women have the right to have an abortion,” we used “The government should have no say in when or if a woman can have an abortion”; instead of the statement “Marijuana should be decriminalized,” we used “It should be legal for adults to grow, smoke, and sell marijuana”)."

Are you kidding me? The 'conservative' choice is presented in such a distasteful way that conservatives themselves would hardly identify with them. In all but the most extreme cases, this is going to skew the responses in a way that middle-road conservatives will look liberal (their failure of the homogeneity of variance test adds further support to my suspicion of polarization). And with regard to "it found that those who self-identified as adaptationists were much less conservative than the general population average..." They are looking at a set of PhD students! Many university populations are going to be more liberal than the general population regardless of whether they self-identify as 'adaptationists'. The conclusions/interpretations are garbage. I believe this results from evolutionary psychologists being totally oblivious to critical thinking and from their steadfast belief that the 'evidence' can speak for itself and that logic can be separated from science. This apparent disdain for philosophy (logic and deductive reason) is itself a philosophical position - its called positivism or scientism and it leads to illusions. I don't think anyone else gets that - and neither will the layperson reading these articles. Logic prevails (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the question were biased towards liberalism or conservatism, this seems to be a minor point as long as both adaptationists and non-adaptationists used the same survey. They had the same political views.Miradre (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the above is of course OR.Miradre (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree that the questions were biased towards conservatism. Who wants to take away a "right"? Associating marijuana with crime by using the word "decriminalization" causes bias. By taking away these associations conservative responses are encouraged.Miradre (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A little study, and, as Logic says, it only tells us about one set of PhD students. The very most that it could be used for is this: if we have a well sourced statement that EP adherents are on the Right, we would add "but one small study indicated that there was no difference in the political stance of psychology PhD students favourable or unfavourable to EP". I am not going to look at the quality of the questionnaire design, trusting that it must be good enough if the results are in a peer-reviewed journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not our role to evaluate a source but given that, why are we even considering a primary source such as this? We need secondary sources that present an overview of mature research not cherry-picked primary sources that report the results of pilot studies. Joja lozzo  16:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not disallowed.Miradre (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that response to mean you can/will not address the concerns I raise. Yes, we can use primary sources but they must be used carefully and they should not be relied on exclusively to make a point. These are basic editing guidelines we should not have to be addressing. From my perspective, the fact that we are arguing about this means there is a significant problem in this article's  editing community that requires administrative intervention.  Joja  lozzo  18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me take issue with LogicP's statement above that I, and others, are "working hard to push the views of EP." Er, how so? Are we going door to door on WP plastering up EP pamphlets suggesting that folks give up their outdated SSSM ways and convert to EP so they may be eventually rewarded with 72 virgins?

I suggest the following minor edit for accuracy: "they are trying hard to accurately present the theories, hypotheses and findings of EP (Mills, 2011)." Hey, we are volunteering our time and expertise here folks, and for very little monetary compensation. We are working. We are working hard. Please, a little more respect and love. Memills (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think WP editors have three main jobs: to distinguish between significant and non-significant views (mainstream vs. fringe, majority vs. minority views); distinguish between appropriate and reliable sources versus non; write well. There is no way an editor can do a competent job of the first two tasks unless they understand the sources in their contexts.  Taking snippets or quotes out of context is one sure sign of an unqualified editor.  Anyone can edit WP just like anyone can volunteer for the Army.  If you have crappy aim, they won't make you a sniper.  Just because we are a volunteer workforce does not mean that skill and knowledge do not matter.


 * I did not come here looking for anyone's respect or love. Memills, if this is how you view WP either have some children or hire a prostitute or find some other way to satisfy your emotional needs.  I came here to contribute to a quality encyclopedia.  If my edits are of low quality, I sure hope someone improves or deletes them, because this is not about our egos, it is about the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, the irony. Memills (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If Mirardre were actually a qualified editor for this article, she would know that the question of whether self-identified "adaptationist" (meaning? And the PhD students who do not identify with as adaptationists are what?  Selectionists i.e. believers in natural selection? Or are our universities crawling with creationist PhD students?) think pot should be legalized says nothing about the political uses of evolutionary psychology. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Or are our universities crawling with creationist PhD students?" Indeed, many are.  They  are not turning out "physiological creationists" (sure, they believe in evolution); but they are turning out "psychological creationists" -- who believe that adaptationism doesn't much apply to the mind, except that it has produced a magical general purpose, blank slate  that creates cultural influences vastly more powerful than psychological adaptations, and thus biology and mental evolution can be pretty much safely ignored.  Those who take biology seriously are called "genetic determinists." Memills (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All this means is that you have turned "creationist" into an epithet you throw at anyone who does not think as you do - it no longer has any meaning. So, it is now not possible to communicate intelligibly with you on this matter. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They asked what their "primary meta-theoretical approach" was. Adaptationist were those selecting "evolutionary" from "(evolutionary, behaviorist, cognitive, developmental systems, psychoanalytic, social learning, or other)." Miradre (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to the citation for Tybur's version of the paper: http://www.unm.edu/~tybur/docs/Testing_the_Controversy.pdf for those of us without access to the actual journal. Joja lozzo  18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So these are non-exclusive categories i.e. someone who uses an evolutionary approach in their own research might still value the research done by behaviorists. And someone who responds "psychoanalytic" might nevertheless be ardent believers in the theory of evolution.  The fact remains, that someone doing EP might favor legalizing pot more than a behaviorist or a psychoanalyst (hmmmm ... why is an interesting question!) just has nothing to do with the debate over the use of EP to justify "the status quo."  What IQ do you have to have to realize that the "status quo" we are talking about is the one invoked in prominent EP studies (or, have I missed the prominent EP study on the benefits of cannabis use to our paleolithic hunter-gatherer-slacker ancestors)?  My point remains: Mirardre doesn't seem to understand what this larger debate is about and certainly is not making relevant and useful contributions? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have objections to the study you should find some sourced criticisms. Exactly what are the EP studies that have advocated any status quo? Be careful to avoid the naturalistic and/or the moralistic fallacy. Miradre (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I do not have to provide sourced criticisms. Did you read the first paragraph of my first paragraph?  If not, read it again.  My comments here are precisely the kind of comments that we editors should be considering on talk pages. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem arguments? Miradre (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, read my first paragraph. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First paragraph from which edit? Give time or link, please.Miradre (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am really not sure what would be a better explanation. The first paragraph is the paragraph preceding the second one.  It is my first post in this section.  If it helps, the timestamp is 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem. You should discuss the arguments. Not the messenger.Miradre (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason to include this in a article that is already overlong, poorly structured and sprawling. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously important study regarding the view that evolutionary psychologists are conservative reactionaries.Miradre (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Important study? By what criteria? I notice there was no argument given for retaining this POV fork, so I am going boldly going to merge it back into the main EP article, stubbing it down as I do so. Watch how it's done. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously something so drastic would not to discussed first.Miradre (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As well as follow WP:MERGE.Miradre (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I explain in the first paragraph of my comment, my objection is to the edit. This is not an ad hominem objection.  Moreover, my questions about the judgment of the editor are based on her edits, therefore not ad hominem either. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See no comment about the specific edit there. Just some vague, general claims about editors.Miradre (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are visually impared then. Another inference.  I wrote that one of the editors' main jobs is to "distinguish between appropriate and reliable sources versus non."  This does not require a sourced criticism, it required good judgment.  Which you obviously lack.  As Logic prevails and Itsmejudith illustrate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The source fulfill the criteria for a WP:RS. Miradre (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No it don't. Not every ickle wee research-ette yield useful gen for pedia, innit? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I ran the second sentence through an automatic translator from English to Swedish and this is what I got: Inte varje ickle wee forsknings-Ette ge användbara gen för pedia, eller hur? I hope that's helpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it not a WP:RS? Also, if you have some sourced criticism, then please include it.Miradre (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, trivia is trivia. You can continue demanding the trivia, demanding the trivia, demanding the trivia  ,    demanding the trivia   ,     demanding the trivia    ...., but WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE are the guiding policies here. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You do not get it, that is why we question your ability to edit Wikipedia. But that is not why we question the edit.  Here is why you do not get it: "Burgos, Adrian (2007). Playing America's Game: Baseball, Latinos, and the Color Line. Univ. of California Press. ISBN 0-520-25143-1. OCLC 81150202" fulfills all the criteria for a RS.  And if I stuck it in this article, and you removed it, I would have no right to demand you provide another source criticizing it.  That is because it is not an appropriate source for this article.  And this matter is not a question of policy, no policy can decide this.  It is the task of WP editors to use their best judgment to decide whether a source is relevant or important enough for the article, no matter how "reliable."  And several editors - at least four - have told you that it doesn't pass this, the WP editor test. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case this helps: an blir inte det, det är därför vi fråga din möjlighet att redigera Wikipedia. Men det är inte därför vi ifrågasätter redigera. Här är varför du inte får det: "Burgos, Adrian (2007) Spela USA: s spel:..... Baseball, latinamerikaner, och Color Line Univ. of California Press ISBN 0-520-25143-1 OCLC 81.150.202" uppfyller alla kriterierna för en RS. Och om jag fastnar den i denna artikel, och du tog bort den, skulle jag har ingen rätt att kräva att du ger en annan källa att kritisera den. Det beror på att det inte är en lämplig källa för denna artikel. Och detta är inte en fråga om politik, kan ingen politik avgöra detta. Det är den uppgift WP redaktörer att använda sitt bästa omdöme att avgöra om en källa är relevant eller tillräckligt viktigt för artikeln, oavsett hur "pålitlig". Och flera redaktörer - minst fyra - har sagt att man inte klarar detta testet WP redaktör. (we should do this with ALL comments!!) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it supposed to be inappropriate? We could certainly add that one criticisms is that the researchers are supposedly right-wing which the article do states is a (false) criticism.Miradre (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WAIT - now you want us to invent a criticism in order to make your quote appropriate? Now we get into RS territory and guess what: now you fail that test. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not invent anything. The source states that this is a (false) criticism.Miradre (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh-duh. But the source is not a reliable source for what critics say.  You need a significant scholar actually making this criticism, or a a neutral scholar reporting it.  In a controversy, you cannot take one side's word for what the other side thinks!Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-duh. Men källan är inte en tillförlitlig källa för vad kritikerna säger. Du behöver en betydande vetenskapsman faktiskt göra denna kritik, eller aa neutrala forskare rapporterar det. I en tvist kan du inte ta den ena sidans ord för vad den andra sidan tycker!Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is this supposed policy? Not sure why you are using some other language in the English Wikipedia? Miradre (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote "invent" I meant that you were now admitting that the source is not addressing a criticism in the article. That is why everyone has been telling you it is inappropriate. And the solution is to leave it out, not to ass to the article the criticism that wasn't there to begin w2ith but that you have been wasting out time with. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But, like I said, before, if you aren't intelligent to begin with, there is no point in trying to edit an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Criticism regarding right-wing views are already in the article in the "History of the debate section". Furthermore, even if it was not, there is certainly no policy against adding an argument and counter-argument.Miradre (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If it will help, I would be happy to add sources that have accused EPers of being right-wingers, or that the field supports right-wing views. That is no problem.
 * And Slrubenstein, could you please stop the insults, and be a tad more civil here?  Memills (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Back and forth" text, with arguments and counter-arguments, is discussed in Neutral point of view. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem here, as stated by others, appears to be editor incompetence. MeMills and Miradre seem to insist that if there is an article, we can reference it without further critical examination. They are either incapable of assessing its credibility, or do not care whether it is valid or if it even fits within the context of the articles. They seem only interested in whether or not it pushes their particular POV. We have already pointed out that the conclusions presented in Miradre's article is poorly supported (we do not need to be EPers or critics to see that). Therefore, the reference ought not to be used, unless we perhaps describe the whole study (including the methodology) so the intelligent reader can see for themselves how illogical the conclusions are and how they do not support the conclusion. But that's what editors are supposed to be able to do... sort through the junk and summarize the most valid literature on a given topic.

Let me just state another example of editor incompetence and POV pushing... in the last 24hrs I introduced the 'disjunction' and 'grain' problems that have been lodged against EP. These are methodological problems that create challenges of indeterminacy within evolutionary psychology's empirical research. Within hours, Miradre inserts this at the end:


 * "A 2010 review article by evolutionary psychologists describes how an evolutionary theory may be empirically tested. An hypothesis is made about the evolutionary cause of a psychological phenomenon or phenomena. Then the researcher makes predictions that can be tested. This involves predicting that the evolutionary cause will have caused other phenomenon or phenomena than the ones already discovered and known. Then these predictions are tested. Numerous evolutionary theories have been tested and confirmed or falsified."

Right!, oh my god, if only those idiots introducing their ridiculous 'disjunction' and 'grain' problems could realize that EP does empirical research! My god, what idiots! The whole point of the grain and disjunction problems is that the methodology of the empirical research is argued to be severely compromised. Anyone who does research knows that it starts with assumptions/hypotheses including the number of variables you control or account for. The 'disjunction' and 'grain' problems are an attack on the assumption that EP can truly know, even with their empirical studies, the nature of their adaptations. Miradre's reference does not even make sense in this context. It would certainly be appropriate if Miradre were to find a reference of an EP article discussing how they get around these SPECIFIC methodological problems, but she instead uses this innapropriate reference to push her preferred POV. This is no different than some of MeMills' posts that are nothing more than "but EP shows these criticisms to be false... please see Confer et al." Again, editor incompetence at its best. I truly want this issue to get resolved or addressed, but unless it does, I cannot see how we can seriously edit this page. Logic prevails (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's talk about shoddy research / theory. "The 'disjunction' and 'grain' problems" apply equally to evolutionary biology.  Have evolutionary biologists been apprised that their entire discipline has been invalided by the "'disjunction' and 'grain' problems?" If they have, I'm sure they would take early retirement.   This is such an obviously shoddy criticism that it shouldn't be included here, right?
 * No, include it. And let the other side rebut. It is not our place here to decide what is / isn't shoddy research -- it is simply to present the notable views of both sides.  And I'm sure that we all agree that some stuff in this article is just downright silliness (but we might disagree about which stuff). Memills (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to level criticism against fellow editors. Please start an RFC and leave this talk page for dealing with particular, focused editorial issues, not the editors. Thanks. Joja lozzo  01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * MeMills, the 'grain' and 'disjunction' problems do not apply in the same way to evolutionary biologists and to suggest otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of how your field differs. Evolutionary biologists primarily focus on observable or measurable physiological characteristics and draw on population biology, comparative phylogenies, selective environmental pressures (of environments they can see and measure in our modern-day), genetics, and so on. In comparison your field studies the physically elusive human mind and relies primarily on reverse-engineering and psychological experimentation. These problems create a specific challenge for your field, since your field comes out of their empirical studies saying 'x,y,z is supported,' when the 'grain' and 'disjunction' problems point to the fact that you could probably never know using your methodology. Logic prevails (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But sure, let's just gloss over the criticisms and end each one with some glib construal of it or a poorly placed 'rebuttal' that does not even address the problem in the source material. That shows academic integrity and honesty right? Logic prevails (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * LogicP -- I may think that the "grain" (or whatever) problem is silliness. But it doesn't really matter what I, or you, think.  As I mentioned above, put whatever is notable, sourced, and relevant in this article.  And, let the other side rebut.  We are not in agreement about EP, but I think we are about those editing policies. Memills (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Memills for injecting some sanity into the discussion. memills and Mirardre's commewnts seem sigularly uninformed in discusions about science. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again you want to take the "let's cite what we can find" attitude instead of doing the harder work that editors SHOULD be busying themselves with: intelligently assessing the quality and relevance of articles. Logic prevails (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)