Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Blank Slate

Miradre has inserted two long sentences that she has copy-pasted from Pinker's book into the article. [1] The book was a popular book (resulting from lectures given in 2000 if I'm not mistaken) by one of the major advocates of evolutionary psychology. According to book reviews, it is controversial (very few of those reviews have been dicussed properly in the WP article, which is not a good sign). In those circumstances, in particuar given the chronology, those long quotes, cherry-picked by Miradre, are inappropriate. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You give no concrete evidence for that anything is wrong. A notable view is of course entirely appropriate. Explaining the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies is an essential part of the debate.Miradre (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, it's not how wikipedia is edited. It's not about WP:TRUTH. If a book is known to have been criticized and is controversial (that's what the book reviews say), we humble wikipedian editors cannot assess statements from it. I have no idea why you cherry-picked those sentences. Certainly copy-pasting extensive passages like that seems to be a complete no-no as far as editing is concerned. As editors of wikipedia none of us is in a position to assess what is notable and what is not notable, which passages in the book are more important than others. Lots of experts have commented at length on Pinker's book and that is where to look. It's not that hard. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything in this area is controversial. Could as just as well argue for that all the criticisms should be removed due to the counter-criticisms. ::Controversy itself is not a reason for exclusion.Miradre (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mirardre refers to a debate, but I did not believe that Pinker preseented his lectures in the context of any debate with any scientists, the book is not part of a debate, it is a polemic. Also, I did not know anyone, even Pinker, considered it scholarly, I though it was obviously aimd at a popular audience. How else does one explain the shoddy scholarship? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has presented any evidence of the book being bad. Or being from a lecture series (which is not necessarily bad). It is certainly notable.Miradre (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, please learn to read what other editors are telling you. Look at the book reviews, instead of writing such childish comments. The reviews make it quite clear that the book was controversial, even a "polemic". At least two published reviews I looked at also stated that various points were often glossed over or poorly argued because of the populist nature of the book. In such circumstances care is required and the diff above shows no sign of that whatsoever. To assess the arguments in Pinker's book, which by the standards of the subject is rather old, just look in subsequent reviews or surveys. At the moment what you have included violates WP:COPYVIO, irrespective of the possible cherry-picking. Please look for reviews or surveys that discuss the content of the book. Page (xii) of the book's preface states that the book had its origins in various forums, and mentions in particular the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Yale University (The Blank Slate, 2000 [2]). Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, good writing in the encyclopedia doesn't include long verbatim quotes of rather general and uninformative points. It's not as if they even encapsulate Pinker's viewpoint well. All he seems to be doing is outlining some fallacies that some people might sometimes fall into. It makes no sense at all to have a verbatim quote from Pinker to describe them. If they're notable fallacies, all we need to do is link to them for further info. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Does not look to bad. does it? Admittedly, snippets, but I think the whole reviews are cannot be to bad. [3] Miradre (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Itsmejudith. The moralistic and naturalistic arguments are central to the debate and needs to be described in the article. A prominent authority such as Pinker seems to be the right person to explain.Miradre (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Promotional blurbs from the publisher? What about the reviews by behavioural psychologists? [4] Please stop being so silly. Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Behavorists for social responsibility?" Behavorists are not the same as EP.Miradre (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Buss: "The most important book in the 21th century".[5]Miradre (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Please look for reviews or surveys that discuss the content of the book. Page (xii) of the book's preface states that the book had its origins in various forums, and mentions in particular the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Yale University" The text states "The themes of this book were first presented at forums whose hosts and audiences provided vital feedback". The Tanner series is not mentioned in particular.Miradre (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It says on page (xii) "and the Tanner Lecture on Human Values at Yale University". Please look again and stop making such silly remarks. Also the journal for the review I mentioned was Behavior and Social Issues. [6] It is published by the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle. At the moment your edits fail WP:COMPETENCE. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It mentions numerous influences. The Tanner series is not singled out.Miradre (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the last entry and the only one which was part of a highly prestigious lecture series. BTW did you realize that you are now in dispute on Talk:Academia with Lionelt, the founding member of WP:WikiProject Conservatism? Ouch. Mathsci (talk)

One entry must be the last. The text does not claim anything about prestigious. OR. I am not in dispute with him.Miradre (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a 209 page published set of lectures, given originally in 1999. Is there some doubt in your mind that the Tanner Lectures on Human Values is not prestigious? Is it really worth arguing about one of the top lecture series at some of the top universities in the world? Might that not be taking things a little too far? Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A very large number of influences are mentioned. The Tanner one is not singled out as particularly important. OR.Miradre (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming is WP:OR by me? Please give a very precise statement. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That the Tanner series should be a particularly important influence.Miradre (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have said that it is significant to be invited to give that prestigious lecture series and that that lecture series is highly regarded. (Pinker lists it amongst his keynote and and honorary addresses in his 2005 CV.[7]) I still haven't any idea of what you could mean by WP:OR. Please explain a bit more. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

The book does not state that the Tanner series is more important than any other influence.Miradre (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you. You are the one making statement about "influence", not me. Evidently, given the title of the lecture series, "The Blank Slate", in those lectures he was presenting aspects of what would appear later in the book of the same name The Blank Slate. Now where is the WP:OR? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You said "in particular". Which is not supported by the book. Many forums were listed.Miradre (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said is correct. That is the standard in the English language of the words "in particular". I pointed out the last entry, because as I understand it everything was in chronological order, as one would expect, and that lecture series shared the name of the future book. But again why do you say WP:OR? That applies to adding content to an article and not the discussion of sources, which is what we ar e concerned with here. So what exactly do you mean by appealing to WP:OR here? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To Miradre, earlier. What I already said. This is not the appropriate place to explain logical fallacies and Pinker is not an authority on logic. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is the place to discuss logical fallacies that are relevant to the debate. My goodness. Only logicians get to talk about logical fallacies?

Miradre is correct: "The moralistic and naturalistic arguments are central to the debate and needs to be described in the article. A prominent authority such as Pinker seems to be the right person to explain." And, Mathsci, of course Pinker's book is controversial. He is basically arguing for a paradigm shift in the social sciences from a non-adaptationist, cultural determinism perspective to an adaptationist, nature-nurture interactionist perspective. Folks who have been educated in, and have been working under, the assumptions of the former are no doubt not going to like this suggestion. That is why there is a controversy, and the purpose of this page is to explore it (not suppress mention of Pinker's book because it was controversial; to the contrary, that is a reason for including reference to it). Memills (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think it became evident above that Miradre has nothing to contribute to these discussions. "Consensus" means a consensus among informed editors, people who understand the topic and WP policy. Miradre has shown she fails on both counts. Do mathsci and Itsmjudith agree on this edit? if so - just make it, already! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cut the personal put downs, SLR. This is the second time I have requested this. Memills (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Memills, Pinker's book is a significant book but it was written for a popular audience. His claims about social science lack any authority or reliability because he has no expertise on the work he discusses. Stephen Pinker is a psychologist and an expert on cognitive psychology. His book makes a much larger argument about intellectual history and he has a right to make these arguments, but he is not an intellectual historian, he has no training in history, and it shouldn't surprise people that he got so much wrong. But he wants to provoke debate. Well, he gave a talk at a university I once worked at, and it was incredibly well-attended, but I didn't detect any real ongoing debate among professors when he left. If anyone out there is a sociologist of science, I think it might take some digging but I think there is an interesting article to be written based on editorials and letters to the editors of campus newspapers at various universities following Pinkers' talks. In the meantime we mostly have sales figures and otherwise have to see if the book was reviewed in scholarly journals, as an index of whether or not it was taken seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Buss: "This may be the most important book so far published in the 21st century.".[8]Miradre (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pinker is one of the top leading scientists in the field of EP. His book was nominated for a Pulitzer prize. Some of the most influential books in the social sciences were written for the intelligent layperson (Coming Age in Samoa, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, The Selfish Gene, etc.) No reason to exclude it. No doubt: The Blank Slate is both notable and relevant. Memills (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware that personal opinions replace wikipedia policy. A controversial book like this is a primary source. The main problems at the moment are Miradre's unjustified quotations, which are cherry-picked and copyvios. They will have to go. Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a primary source. Not that they are prohibited. Everything is controversial in this area. It is like removing the criticisms because there are counter-criticisms.Miradre (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It can be difficult to Assume Good Faith when an editor gives this treatment to only counter-args rather than the criticisms. Memills (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gould's The Mismeasure of Man is another example of a source which can be a primary source in certain other controversial areas for the same reasons. It cannot be used directly for writing wikipedia articles connected with those controversial areas.

Miradre's edits are problematic for the reasons I've already given (unjustified cherry-picking & copyvios). Those reasons will not go away no matter how many kbytes are added to this page. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Don't keep repeating "primary sources aren't prohibited". The position is this. In articles about scholarly subjects (science, social science, history), we use scholarly sources. Primary sources can also go in alongside the secondary sources as an aid to the reader. For example, if I am writing about the 1944 Education Act, there are a number of histories of education in England and I should use the best of them. I can also link to sections of the Act itself. If "everything is controversial" - and what a sorry state of affairs that would be - then all the more reason to ensure we use good sources throughout. And we don't need to add more stuff. We need to delete confusing detail, to replace waffle with specifics, to use the best sources in place of random pdfs, to reorganise so that it has a structure. A good quality article is NPOV but should also be readable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You can read the policy here: WP:PRIMARY.Miradre (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, please stop making edits like this. They are just WP:TROLLING. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Correcting errors regarding policy is important.Miradre (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are not "correcting errors regarding policy"; they are repetitious WP:TROLLING. Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Try to be civil.Miradre (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil. I described your repetitious edits, which have been appalling here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Under Primary Sources Policy:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

In my opinion, this is how primary sources are often misused by editors here. Primary sources are frequently used in inappropriate ways to defend or bolster a position in ways that do not necessarily fit the original intention. This seems related to the policy regarding WP:COATRACK. Again, a couple of editors seem to be of the position that we can "cite what we find" without having to bother with the seemingly cumbersome task of critically evaluating the quality of the article or its appropriateness within the context of the page. Even though there are policy issues that should help us out here, the main issue for me is not so much policy, but a lack of academic honesty/integrity and people trying to write outside of their knowledge base with an interest in pushing a certain POV. Logic prevails (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The key word in that sentence is interpretation. Simply describing what is in a primary source is not against policy. And, frankly, picking on Pinker, a highly esteemed figure in psychology in general, is really a bit much. Pick your battles wisely folks. Memills (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not the interpretation usually upheld on the boards or by ArbCom. And it has been tested hundreds of times on articles of all kinds, some of them far more controversial than this. I'm going to spell out again what I already said. On natural science articles we regard peer-reviewed academic journal articles that simply report research findings as primary. If you would care to read through the archives of Talk: Cold fusion... In most social science and arts areas we regard peer-reviewed papers as secondary, e.g. a peer reviewed article in a history journal would be regarded as secondary. EP sits on the boundary, therefore we have to make a decision which path to follow. Personally I am more familiar with the social science approach and would be fine with us drawing on the more significant peer reviewed papers. Pinker is a notable figure in the field. The existence of his popular books should be noted, but they are not RS for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is notable that both LogicP and I agree on this issue(a rarity that may be notable): To eliminate primary sources on this page would eviscerate the article. That would be fine by me, since I think that most all of the criticisms are wrong. But, in the interest of fairness, my personal opinion don't matter, and this page should present both sides of the debate accurately.

As noted above, there are far too few NPOV (arguably perhaps none -- the debate is so visceral) secondary sources to rely on. So virtually all of the sources on this page are POV -- but, that's ok because this is a page where both sides of a POV debate are presented. Memills (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of Tybur et al. in "Is" and "ought"

Tybur et al. is a primary source which may be used only to support statements that a layperson could take away from reading it. That means that technical works such as Tybur can't be used for much besides direct quotes or unvarnished paraphrase. Any interpretation of primary sources must be based on secondary sources. Here is the operative policy:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

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

The evaluation of the conclusions in Tybur et al. require a sophisticated statistical background. That is the kind of analysis that we must leave for secondary sources.

Tybur et al. reports on a single study with a small sample. Using it alone to support claims about the political climate of the proponents of EP is WP:UNDUE. A secondary source on this topic would bring together multiple studies and present a broader perspective.

The summary material in "Is" and "ought" is not well supported by Tybur et al. and requires a secondary source. Tybur et al. is not being used appropriately there. Joja lozzo 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is stated that is not in the source.Miradre (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not how wikipedia works. A secondary source must be used in these circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Miradre: Perhaps, but someone unfamiliar with the techniques used in that study would have great difficulty accessing and evaluating that information in the source. You are either not reading the policy carefully or have a very different interpretation of it. If we are interpreting it differently then let's stop now and get administrative help. Joja lozzo 01:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote what the policy says: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy"

It does not state that a person should be able to verify that the primary source has drawn the correct conclusions; it states that no new conclusions should be drawn.Miradre (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I could change all the text to direct quotations if preferred.Miradre (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is prohibited. Mathsci (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair use allows at least a couple of sentences. The point being that material is just paraphrasing of what the study says. Nothing new is claimed or and no additional analyzes done.Miradre (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is assumed no wikipedian (including Memills) has any expertise in the area, so the sentences could be cherry-picked. That is why secondary sources are required in this case. Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation would mean that one could cite nothing from a primary source when the policy states than one can. Furthermore, the article is summarized in the abstract. If preferred we could use only that.Miradre (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, everything depends on context. Let me give an example so this can become clearer in your head. Let us suppose we have a very controversial paper, e.g. from the 1960s. That is then a primary source and can only be discussed through secondary sources. If one of those secondary sources quotes the paper, then those quotations (within the context of the discussion in the secondary source) can be also be cited. Mein Kampf is another example. Or a play by Shakespeare. Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not what the policy states. One can cite from a primary source without going through a secondary source as long as no new interpretations are made.Miradre (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I am afraid you do not understand the principles. It would apply for example to the 1969 paper of Jensen. That is spelled out in detail in the principles of WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful for what you wish for, guys. Many of the sources used for criticisms of EP are primary sources. Memills (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Going just to secondary sources for this article is probably a good idea. It would eliminate a lot of the SYN, OR, and cherry-picking. Are you in? Joja lozzo 02:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be if that had been the rule from the outset of the page creation. Now, both sides would resist removal of their "stuff" (although they would be gleeful at the removal of the other side's stuff). Another consideration is that secondary sources re this debate (a) are usually POV themselves, and (b) there are not enough recent secondary sources that cover the more recent debates in a NPOV way. Memills (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What arbcom said: "Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Nothing new is claimed about the source; only what the source states is reported.Miradre (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Choosing the sentences you wish to quote is synthesis: there's no indication why a user, with no competence in the subject, should have even the slightest clue of how to assess a controversial primary source. I'm sure any of the arbitrators who commented in the Request for clarification could explain that point more carefully to you if need be. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, with your interpretation nothing could ever be used from a primary source since it involves a choice of what to use. The article is summarized in the abstract so if you prefer we can restrict ourself only to that.Miradre (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, folks. EP has been repeatedly, and sometimes viciously, accused by opponents of being right-wing, or of supporting right wing views (again, no problem documenting that). Someone finally does an empirical study to actually try to find out if these charges are true -- using actual Ph.D. students (with a good sample size -- despite the criticism here), and the findings suggest that these charges are incorrect. And you are arguing that it should not be presented? Kind of strange. Memills (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That study must have hit a really raw nerve.Miradre (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that this talk page is not a WP:FORUM or a WP:SOAPBOX. Please leave these kind of comments to your blog, Memills. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted a request for clarification on the use of Tybur et al. on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and received the following response:

The source does not support the key sentence at the start of the paragraph - a good source for this would be secondary source noting this criticism of the field. The study cited would belong under a topic heading such as 'political views associated with scientific beliefs' where it would sit alongside broader sources. The argument that the source material is complex and technical is not a major issue - it is the fact that it is primary that limits its value. Martinlc (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proponents say, "Primary sources are allowed." Jojalozzo 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed, but secondary RS are preferred. It sounds to me as if editors are keen to include something about politics and have found it difficult to find a good secondary source, and proposed primary instead. The danger of using primary sources is that it is left to wiki editors to decide how significant, reliable, well-evidenced any statement is. I would argue that a primary source which cannot be demonstrated as notable in itself should not be used as the sole or main source. If it is genuinely impossible to find any secondary sources which address the issue then its inclusion in the article is UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Only one responder but it's something. Does this move us any closer to resolution? Joja lozzo 01:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Source certainly does support the first sentence. Should all the criticisms cited to primary sources in the article be removed? Miradre (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This response only applies to this one case. If we want a broader opinion we'd have to ask for it, though I suspect the response would be that we have to deal with them on a case by case basis and, anyway, I think everyone agrees that there are ways that primary sources can be used legitimately. Whether or not the first sentence is supported seems minor and we should be able find a secondary source for that. The lack of a secondary source for the rest and related UNDUE issue is much more serious. Joja lozzo 02:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this article about criticism of EP?

As an article about criticism of EP I would expect the rebuttals to me minimal. However in many sections they dominate. Usually a criticism fork like this is used to offload the criticism from the main article so the presentation of controversial concepts can be presented without interruption and confusion. That's fine as long as the criticism fork is allowed to present the criticism without interruption and confusion. Can we develop consensus as to our purpose here? Joja lozzo 01:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

POV fork article only presenting a particular view are explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Content forking. All articles must follow NPOV and present both sides fairly.Miradre (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want a NPOV article then why aren't you working to add all this criticism to the EP page? Joja lozzo 02:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it is unduly biased against evolutionary psychology with important arguments in favor lacking. If the article was biased in favor of EP I would do the opposite.Miradre (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you are not adding criticism to the EP page, does that mean you think the EP page is not biased in favor of EP? Joja lozzo 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have added a number of criticisms to main page. In fact, to the intro, the most important part of article. Furthermore, the main EP page is mainly descriptive of the field. That is not criticism or support in itself. Anyhow, one possible problem does not justify new problems. If there are problems with the man page you should discus them on that talk page. Miradre (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Providing an accurate description of a discipline is not a positive bias. The primary purpose of the main EP page is to provide an accurate description of the discipline; the purpose of this page is to explore the controversy, pro and con. The main EP page is not a "Criticisms" page, but it does include a Controversies section. This issue has already been explored thoroughly on the EP Talk page (see the archives). Memills (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also looking for neutrality and trying to understand the logic of efforts to dominate much of this page with rebuttals. If the main page is descriptive of the field with criticism relegated to the margins, why cannot this page be neutrally "descriptive of the criticism" with rebuttals kept in check?

I also am not reading this article title to mean we're here to "explore the controversy". If that were the case it would have the original controversy title and even if we were here to explore the controversy there should not be all this pro-EP POV pushing. Joja lozzo 02:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is WP policy that Criticisms pages cover both sides of the debates. Not trying to be rude, I know you are new here, but you might find that exploring the EP Talk page interesting. Many of the issues you have brought up have been thoroughly discussed. Memills (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You take the position that this article is not overloaded with rebuttals? Joja lozzo 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if one were to analyze the page content, it would be found that there is more prose covering criticisms than rebuttals. Memills (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All relevant arguments and counter-arguments should be presented. There is no limitation in favor one particular side. If one side has stronger argument, then that is not a reason to "censor" arguments from the stronger side in order to achieve an exact 50-50 balance regarding size or any other variable.Miradre (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's policy (WP:Content Forking#Acceptable types of forking) that allows a POV and requires the POV be presented neutrally:

Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors."

Joja lozzo 03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, criticisms are a legitimate article topic. But in order for the article to be neutral the counter-arguments must also be included. POV forks are forbidden.Miradre (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles can't be used to "prove" something, like some sort of debate. What is this question of "sides" anyway? There is no black and white here. Certainly the idea that every criticism has to be followed by a phrase, "but evolutionary psychologists have dismissed these arguments" with a reference to a book or article without page numbers is not the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are counter-arguments they should be presented..Miradre (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. These rebuttals would be better if they were presented as summaries of arguments, rather than just "see this ref for the rebuttal." I encourage editors to read the article mentioned, and flesh out the basic arguments (you don't even need to agree with them to do this, either). Memills (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot do that if they are primary sources. Indeed very recent work probably cannot appear in this article at all, since it has not been properly evaluated or assessed. That takes time. Wikipedia does not need to be a WP:CRYSTAL BALL, even if there are fortune-tellers around, eager to hawk their wares. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are not disallowed.Miradre (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't use articles that have appeared two weeks ago containing new research. Surveys are fine. Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It did not appear two weeks ago. Not that there is any time limitation in the policy.Miradre (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean that literally. It's worth remembering how the cold fusion article was dealt with, just for seeing the general framework for editing in a controversial scientific area. Mathsci (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

EP is a major approach in psychology with numerous peer-reviewed studies including in major psychology journals.Miradre (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is an emerging part of psychology, some parts of which are uncontroversial, other parts of which are controversial. Here you have just said that it's a "major approach in psychology with numerous peer-reviewed studies including in major psychology journals". But why on earth should we be interested in your personal assessment? Is this your blog? Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A 2010 review in American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." [9]

Isn't this precisely the problem I mentioned? You just cherry-picked the first sentence. After that it goes on, "At the same time, it has generated critiques and remains controversial among some psychologists. Some of the controversy stems from hypotheses that go against traditional psychological theories; some from empirical findings that may have disturbing implications; some from misunderstandings about the logic of evolutionary psychology; and some from reasonable scientific concerns about its underlying framework." My description above was quite an accurate summary. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing at all like cold fusion.Miradre (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the cold fusion article to explain "the general framework for editing in a controversial scientific area". We are talking about editing policy here, in case you had forgotten. At the moment at every step you appear to be making statements, often non-sequiturs, contradicting standard wikipedia editing policy. Mathsci (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate to make a comparison to cold fusion and claim that any similar editing framework apply.Miradre (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "impact" factor of EP journals is very high in psychology and growing. Especially the journals Evolution and Human Behavior and Evolutionary Psychology. As already noted, top mainstream journals in psychology, including Psychological Science and Journal of Social and Personality Psychology now regularly include articles that have developed and tested adaptationist hypotheses. And, you have to keep in mind that most older psychology researchers have had little or no graduate level training in evolutionary psychology. It is a paradigm shift, which is typically resisted and only gradually comes to replace the older perspective. Memills (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Memills, please stop using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He responded to your claim.Miradre (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, please keep references to Cold Fusion on your blog. There is no comparison or relevance to EP. Memills (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about editing policies which were emphasized during the related ArbCom case. During that case those editors who were seen to be acting with a WP:COI as advocates were topic-banned indefinitely. Editors here could conceivably find themselves in a very similar situation. And being uncivil does not help. Mathsci (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What arbcom case was that? Miradre (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My interest is in accuracy, not advocacy. And, I'm all for civility. In fact, I requested it on this very page, above. Memills (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Mathsci (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see a number of policies mentioned but nothing about WP:COI.Miradre (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The principle cited ny ArbCom in the ruling on Pcarbonn is here: Wikipedia:SOAP#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with MeMills that if we make a decision to exclude primary sources, we are going to end up with no article. Most of the criticisms will be gone until someone writes another textbook summary of the critiques. I prefer the idea of just having good editors who can judge a good reference/study from a bad one. Logic prevails (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have to use surveys whenever possible. The subject is too recent to give any kind of comprehensive encyclopedic treatment. Unfortunately, since there do seem to be some vested interests here, it is absolutely essential to stick to wikipedia policies. That might mean imposing some cut-off date, so that recent work that is not discussed in a survey is beyond the scope of these articles. That is certainly what happens in articles on mainstream science. Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy preventing primary sources.Miradre (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Endless repetition of the same fallacious argument when a detailed response has already been given is called WP:TROLLING. Please stop trolling on this page Miradre. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"There is no policy preventing primary sources." What part of this do you disagree with? Show the policy that makes that statement false. Memills (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy on primary sources is highly restricted. That means that policy does not allow ("prevents") primary sources in many cases. Joja lozzo 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the policy on (WP:Content Forking#Acceptable types of forking) that allows a POV and requires the POV be presented neutrally:

Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors."

My interpretation of this is that an article that presents a point of view is legitimate "as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is." That last phrase is critical since it says that the title determines whether the article needs to present both sides with equal weight in contradiction of assertions here that articles presenting a particular view are explicitly prohibited. When the title of this article was changed to "Criticism" instead of "Controversy" it changed to an article to present the criticism, which is what I assumed the article was about when I recently joined in. However, there is clearly disagreement about it. I think we need to decide which it's going to be and make sure the title matches the decision. Joja lozzo 02:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Does not change that POV forks are prohibited as stated at the top of WP:Content Forking. Note also the sentence "the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". "neutrally" links to WP:NPOV. All articles, including articles with POV titles, must follow NPOV.Miradre (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case NPOV means that if the article is about criticisms then we should allow the criticisms to stand without rebutting each one. Structuring the article with criticism followed by rebuttal is POV against the criticism. It is equivalent to adding criticism after each assertion in the EP page. If we want this article to be about the controversy then let's decide that and change the title but for now it's an article about the criticism and it's UNDUE to structure it in a way that negates each criticism once it's presented. A NPOV structure would put the rebuttals in a short section at the end and leave the main EP page to present the EP POV. Joja lozzo 02:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV excludes both articles and individual sections in an article from being POV. Having a counter-criticism does not necessarily negate a criticism. It is just an opposing view.Miradre (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you interpret "articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view"? I do not see where it says an article about a point of view must allow other points of view to be presented. It says they must be cross referenced. Likewise it says that the point of view must be presented neutrally which to my mind means each assertion should not be immediately followed by counter arguments. I do not think you (or I) would support that on the EP page. Joja lozzo 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV which is linked means that all significant views on an issue must be presented. Applies to both articles and sections. Your quoted text states that one can create an article on a POV topic but that it must be presented neutrally following NPOV. If you have a problem with another page take it up on the talk page of that article.Miradre (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality for an article whose subject is a POV does not mean following every description of the POV with rebuttals and counter arguments. A neutral presentation of a POV should simply describe the POV and leaves it at that. That is what the policy says. The other POVs should be cross referenced not given pride of place to negate the POV at every turn. Joja lozzo 03:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality for an article does mean presenting all significant views in an article and in the sections in the article. Just because one presents counter-arguments this does not mean negating or that one side is correct. The policy say that one can create an article on a POV subject but that the content must follow WP:NPOV. Miradre (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

When a POV is the topic then the object of the POV is supposed to be treated in a biased way - the topic is the bias. (It's the POV that must be treated neutrally not the object of the POV.) Material that distorts the topic POV violates NPOV policy. In an article about criticism of EP we need to do our best to describe the criticism without adding our own perspectives, without coming to it with a strong POV for or against the criticism. I (and many others on this talk page) think the structure of the article with each section concluded with a negation of the criticism results in severe distortion of the criticism. Joja lozzo 04:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all articles must follow WP:NPOV. There is no "NPOV for a POV article". It would of course be extremely unfair to have an article only or mainly presenting the views of one side.Miradre (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no. That's exactly what the policy I cited says: it's ok to have an article where the topic is a point of view and it must be a neutral (NPOV) treatment of the POV. I hear that this seems unfair to you but it is what it is. Think Liberalism, Conservatism, Racism, Anti-EP-ism :-). Joja lozzo 04:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a Controversies page. See the Creation–evolution controversy page -- same idea. Again, per my previous comments on the EP talk page, when the fundamental assumptions of two schools of thought are so radically different, it is appropriate that each has its own page (without constant bickering about things that are derivative of those basic assumptions). There are separate pages for evolution and creationism for that reason, and the conflict between their starting set of assumptions (and derivative conflicts) are explored a separate Creation–evolution controversy page. Also, as I have argued, most of the criticisms on this page are really part of the larger nature vs nurture debate, and those should be moved from here to that page. What remains should be more related to EP than to the larger issue of nature vs. nurture. Memills (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to address MeMills on these issues (we've done this numerous times before).

MeMills wishes to view EP as synonymous with evolution, which is why he often compares critics with religious creationists. Following Cosmides and Tooby, he has accused critics (and editors) of being 'cultural determinists' or followers of the supposed Standard social science model. For MeMills, EP is the ONLY way to apply evolutionary thinking to human psychology. However, it would seem that in reality, EP is rather a SPECIFIC WAY of applying evolutionary thought to human psychology. In order to study the physically elusive human mind, any empirical investigation must first first start with deciding how to define it - this involves making various 'assumptions' (as opposed to 'facts'). I would not expect MeMills to recognize this, since he frequently make comments that dismiss anything that sounds 'philosophical' (e.g. deductive reasoning) - but his position is itself a philosophical one (of positivism).

Based on several assumptions and lines of reasoning, EP defines the mind as an information-processing system with an abundance of innate or pre-specified domain-specific modules that were adapted to solve specific problems of our Pleistocene past. These assumptions are seriously contested. To call them 'controversies' rather than 'criticisms' is to presuppose the verdict and to close your eyes and ears to the possibility that you could be wrong. Good scientists (and good philosophers) do not allow themselves to take such positions. Though you would not agree with them, there are alternative ways to applying evolutionary ideas to human psychology using very different assumptions. These alternatives do not rely on the assumptions of abundant innate modularity or the assumption that the most important environment was that of the Pleistocene. Your insistence that these criticisms are part of the larger nature-nurture debate makes sense if we allow ourselves to think as evolutionary psychologists. For MeMills, the debate is dead because EP claims to have killed it, by telling us how nature and nurture are supposed to interact. Evolutionary psychologists claim that a separation of nature and nurture is a false dichotomy, but ironically, that is exactly what they end up doing. For them, nearly all of human psychology can be explained in our nature, while our nurture (present environments, culture, and so on), plays a relatively minor role. They carve up nature and nurture in their 'proximate' and 'ultimate' distinctions. And while we might agree that a 'proximate' reaction to pulling a hand away from a hot stove is in part the result of the 'ultimate' cause of a pain reflex arc, we cannot assume the same is true of all human behaviors, since the brain is not massively modular, and since much of our psychology is shaped (programmed if you will) by our culture - the moment we enter the world, we are cultural creatures. Evolutionary psychologists seem to think that we can peel away the cultural layers to reveal a 'raw human being,' separate from any cultural influences, and standing naked in their 'human nature' (thus revealing their innate psychobiological software). These are just a few of the assumptions of EP. They are not part of the standard 'nature-nurture' debate.

There have been some great editors on these pages who are familiar with the debate and familiar with the criticisms. But there have also been a few editors who consistently push these editors away by being dogmatic defenders of their POV. It becomes tiresome - I take my leave. Good luck. Logic prevails (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Memills: No it's not a controversy page it is a criticism page. The title says it. That's why the policy I have cited applies here rather than the standard NPOV policy you and Miradre have been applying. If we want it to be a controversy page we need to agree on that and change the title. For now it's a criticism page and we need to be neutral in presenting the opinions of EP critics. Rebutting every criticism is pushing an anti-critic POV. It's clear to me and most everyone else here, including you I hope, that you and Miradre bring an anti-critic and pro-EP perspective to this page. More discussion here seems pointless unless we can all agree on whether the page is supposed to be about the controversy or just a presentation of the criticism. I don't see that happening. I propose we get some help to resolve this. I think it's quite likely that the result will be to merge this page back into the main page. Joja lozzo 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging and condensing this material back into the main article sounds like a good idea. It would avoid the problems with rebuttals in this article. Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If we were to merge it back we'd need to take care not to repeat the errors here in ending every section with a list of criticisms. I would think a single solid presentation of the criticism, unrebutted, in its own section would be the best treatment. Joja lozzo 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I only have a minute to respond to the concerns stated above -- perhaps I can elaborate further later. Or, I have already laid out my position in sufficient detail such that editors who have been here awhile already know it. But the point I wish to emphasize is that this page was indeed called the "Evolutionary Psychology Controversy" page -- it was not a "Criticisms" page. Judith recently changed the name over the objections of several editors. I suggested that if it was to remain a Criticisms page only criticisms specific to EP, and NOT the larger nature-vs-nurture controversy, should remain here (see my comments above re this).

Per LogicP's comments about my use of the analogy between evolution vs. creationism and EP vs. cultural determinism. My point is that the starting set of assumptions are so radically different that arguments re derivatives of those assumptions are typically unproductive and useless. I am not suggesting that cultural determinists don't believe in evolution. Most do. But as exemplified by SLR and some cultural anthropologists here, while most agree that adaptationism applies to the body, they do not think is also applies to the brain in such a way that it needs to be given much weight in explaining human behavior. Sure, one can say "I believe in evolution," but some mean mostly evolution below the shoulders not above. Also, there are no well articulated theories of evolution above the shoulders other than EP. There is no alternative research program about how evolution shapes our psychology and human nature. One can say that evolution produced a "general purpose, non-modular brain" but that itself would need explanation about how that works -- the causal principles that organize it. Behavioral and cultural phenotypes are not unrestricted, nor random. Anyway, initial thoughts, with which I'm sure some folk here disagree. Memills (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, what bothers me most is the perversion of Darwin and of the modern synthesis. There are some very important ways in which evolutionary mechanisms ifluence human behaivor and some prominent people (like Pinker) get it completely wrong.

The question of "weight" in explanation is a red herring. Real science works through rigorous methods, and most EPers just ignore those methods and ignore rigor. The idea of evolution above the head versus evolution below the head is a stupid distinction. If I thought evolution stopped at the neck, how would I explain what color eyes I have? The modern synthesis is dependent on a distinction between phenotype an genotype. Both can be modeled mathematically. I have yet to see a work by evolutionary psychology that acknowledges the distinction accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As usual, couldn't disagree more. My sense is that you don't actually read much primary source EP. As for mathematical treatments, fer chrissakes, W. Hamilton was all math, so was Lumsden and Wilson, and Trivers. And, currently, check out Bowles and Gintis on evolutionary game theory and cooperation. And, evolution above the neck didn't refer to eye color. Amazing. Memills (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you do not know what you are talking about. Hamilton was not an evolutionary psychologist. And I am talking about the qualification of empirical data. Game theory is irrelevant, it is a mathematical model, but please read what I wrote - it is not a mdel based on the quantification of variation of phenotypes and genotypes. You have no response to what I wrote, so you respond to what I didn't write.Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Increasing Entropy in the See Also Section

Judith has collapsed all the materials in the See Also selection that were formerly sorted by pro vs. con perspectives. Don't think we need to be consistent with the 2nd law. Less organization is better than more? Memills (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Organization makes it easier for those interested. I think the argument was that it may be unclear how to sort a particular source but we could have a section called "Other" of something similar for cases where the source itself does not clearly state its POV.Miradre (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia policy to sort things into sections like that. The use of the word "entropy" is unhelpful here. Mathsci (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. But it's kinda like "cold fusion" -- just like the sound of it. Anyway... when in doubt, RTFM. Policy cite, anyone? Memills (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to innate phobia criticism appears to be OR

Except for the first sentence, the whole section Criticism of evolutionary psychology#Fear and phobias as innate or learnt is OR, at least as presented. It just describes some research that could be used by someone to address the criticism. We cannot assemble our own set of ~~primary~~ sources to rebut the criticism. We need a ~~secondary~~ source that makes these counter arguments. Joja lozzo 03:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of the criticisms use primary sources. Regardless, primary sources are not prohibited and are not OR.Miradre (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have just said "sources". We can't interpret any source primary, secondary, tertiary... Joja lozzo 18:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no interpretations. The statements are from the sources.Miradre (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide the actual quotes where Fox and Lip criticize EP? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A single case cannot counter an entire discipline like EP. Perhaps EP is too broad and non-specific to be falsifiable? However, innate fear learning modules have been championed as a paradigmatic case of success in EP (see their discussion under "Principles" in the main EP article, along with ref #29 in the same article). Evidence directly opposed to the standard EP interpretation clearly belongs in a criticisms of EP article. The authors of the source article (Fox and Lip) did not make a logical fallacy and claim to have disproved the entire field of EP. You may be demanding an unreasonable claim from reasonable scientists, as a criteria for inclusion. From a different angle, by analogy, it is fair to cite Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of DNA, even though she didn't know the full significance of her X-ray crystallography images at the time. A piece of scientific evidence can be used in support or criticism of a theory independent of the discoverers' motives or allegiances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. We cannot bring in sources to respond to a criticism unless the source itself is explicitly responding to it. We cannot build up our own arguments against the criticism, we can only report on actual responses to it. Joja lozzo 11:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, my point above is in favor of including reference to primary experimental results inconsistent with the standard predictions of EP. This research is perfectly consistent with criticism of EP, it is not about countering a criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I misunderstood. However, you still appear to be missing the point that a source is not usable here if it is not explicitly a criticism of EP or an explicit counter-argument to criticism. We need sources for both criticisms and counter-arguments that are self-identified as involved in the controversy. The sources for criticism must be explicitly targeted at EP and the sources for counter-arguments must be explicitly responding to criticisms of EP. We cannot use sources that we judge independently as support for either side. That would be OR. Joja lozzo 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I follow your point, but I disagree with your point of view. Citing primary peer reviewed scientific literature is the best possible source. There was no original research in the presentation; it was purely a summary from a credible source, properly cited. Have you read the original source article by Fox et al? To quote from the article abstract, "These results support a threat superiority effect but not one that is preferentially accessed by threat-related stimuli of phylogenetic origin." These results are directly opposed to specific and central claims made by proponents of EP; claims listed in the wikipedia article on EP, and in numerous primary sources cited there. I sincerely appreciate that you are taking efforts to improve the quality of this article, which still needs much work. I believe you made a mistake and misidentified a summary of primary research as OR. If you disagree, please quote from the primary research to back up this claim, as I have highlighted one of several places where the original authors say that their data are directly inconsistent with a central claim of EP. Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 9:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jj: I am unable to figure out what sources you are referring to or why you have chosen them (#29 is not part of the innate phobia section and that section is now just one sentence with a reference to Buller 2005), nor am I sure you are responding to me (who wrote the message you indented beneath) or to Slrubenstein (back up there several messages). However, the conclusions of sources used in the innate phobias section (before it was severely truncated) were not presented as arguments in the controversy being made by the sources but as arguments being made by the article (i.e. OR). Because this is an article about the controversy and not EP, we must use sources that explicitly engage in the controversy and we must present them as such. If the sources are explicitly engaged in the controversy, it doesn't serve the project simply to defend the sources on this talk page if the way they are presented in the article suggests OR.

Also, I see you are putting "~~~~" in the edit summary. Instead, please put "~~~~" at the end of your contribution to the talk page and put a comment in the edit summary that describes your edit. Thanks, Joja lozzo 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OR in counter arguments

I have tagged a number of sections as containing OR because the counter arguments are the work of editors here not reliable sources. Certainly William James never rebutted any EP critics so we cannot bring him out as a counter argument unless a source has done it for us and then we must cite the source as interpreting James as a counter argument to the criticism. We cannot assemble our own set of primary sources from various fields to counter criticism of EP. We have to find sources that have done that work and then report it. Joja lozzo 04:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section above.Miradre (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Using a source to counter a criticism that the source itself does not explicitly address is an interpretation of the source and is OR. As written these counter-arguments are interpretive - they do not attribute any opinions to the sources but draw criticism-related conclusions (OR) from their results. For example, I know for a fact that William James never expressed an opinion about contemporary criticism of EP. That's blatant OR and the rest is similar but more subtle because it's interpreting contemporary sources. Joja lozzo 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, William James himself may not have commented on EP. But the source is not a work by William James.Miradre (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't use James' opinions as a counter argument. We need to use a real counter argument that uses James to explicitly address the criticism. The way it's written, Wikipedia is expressing an opinion about James and how it relates to the criticism. We can't do that. Likewise it's OR to use the results of research to counter criticism. We have to use a source that says the research results counter the criticism. Joja lozzo 19:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed to text to reflect the source.Miradre (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. Now we need fix the rest of the apparent OR. I will mark what I can find... Joja lozzo 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Free Will is not a political issue

It is a theological concept and if anyone still cares about it it is metaphysicians, not politicians. Liberty and liability are political and ethical issues, not free will. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what this section is doing in this article. The claimed objection would apply to any argument of "nature" being involved in the brain. As such I propose moving it to the "Nature versus nurture" article.Miradre (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Smith et al. and TDB

Smith et al. write: "We suggest that a more effective evaluation of the rape-as-evolved-reproductive-strategy hypothesis requires specification of an evolutionary model, and estimates of the fitness costs and benefits of rape. Ideally, these estimates should be based on quantitative data from several traditional societies (natural-fertility populations of hunter–gatherers or tribal people)". They follow their own suggestion and use a model with estimates of the fitness costs and benefits of rape in order to evaluate Thornhill and Palmer hypothesis that rape is an evolved reproductive strategy.

The Daily Beast source summarizes the findings: "It wasn't even close: the cost exceeds the benefit by a factor of 10."

Perhaps Memiils can explain why he keeps reverting to his preferred version. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I would be happy to.

First, read the entire article by Smith et al. (better than a report of it in popular literature).

Your prose: "Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis that rape is an evolved reproductive strategy" is incorrect. They state that it could be either an evolved reproductive strategy, or, a byproduct (page 81, for one example of several). I edited your prose to make the statement more accurate: "Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis that a predisposition to rape in certain circumstances might be an evolved sexually dimporhpic psychological adaptation." Note: "might be" vs. "is."

Your prose that " ...meaning that the disadvantages of rape outweighed the advantages as a reproduction strategy by a 10 to one margin" is misleading. The study does not make such broad claims. It is a specific comparison to 25 year olds. Further, even this is quite speculative given that it is based on a hypothetical mathematical model populated with estimated parameters, along with some data from one culture. It is not an empirical conclusion that can be stated with certitude and without qualification.

Per the above, the revisions to the paragraph that I made (here) were made in the interests of clarity and accuracy. Memills (talk)

I do not object to changing "is" to "might" but I do object to "certain circumstances", "dimporhpic psychological" etc. because that's not in the source and you know it. Smith et al. write about Thornhill & Palmer "A recent book by Thornhill and Palmer53 proposes that rape might be the expression of a domain-specific adaptation that evolved as a male reproductive strategy in the EEA" and, therefore, "Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis that rape might be an evolved reproductive strategy" is correct.

It is explained that it's about 25 year olds. Write a response to the TDB source, publish it, and we can see if we'll use your opinion about possible and impossible empirical conclusions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you have added WP:OR with this sentence: " ...meaning that the disadvantages of rape outweighed the advantages as a reproduction strategy by a 10 to one margin." Smith et al. did not say that, and you know it.

""Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis that rape might be an evolved reproductive strategy" is correct." Right, but, this is even more correct: "Thornhill and Palmer suggest that rape might be an evolved reproductive strategy, or, it could be a byproduct of other adaptations."

Re "certain circumstances" -- Thornhill & Palmer explore in their book under what conditions men are more likely to rape (e.g., when the possibility of punishment is low). Certainly, no one is arguing that all men rape in all circumstances. Memills (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of evolutionary psychology → Evolutionary psychology controversies – I think the proposed name more accurately and neutrally reflects the article's content than the current name, which seems to be much more of a POV fork. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

As noted at POV fork:

There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)."

Also, the proposed new title "Evolutionary psychology controversies" is a tad confusing. There are controversies within the field of evolutionary psychology itself (but they are based on an acceptance of the foundational assumptions/principles of the field). And, there is criticism from opposing / competing paradigms (e.g., social constructionism) that reject the basic assumptions / principles of the field. This article is more the latter.

The new title potentially conflates these two types of criticism -- they are quite different. It would be rather like combining two articles titled "Controversies among evolutionary biologists" and "Creationist criticisms of evolution" into one article called "Evolutionary biology controversies." I am afraid it wouldn't work too well... Memills (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom. The current is too POV. And the various types of criticisms should be conflated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment It turns out Evolutionary psychology controversies already exists, but it is just a redirect. If most people vote for this to be moved, I guess that an admin will have to delete the redirect so this page can be moved there. Jinkinson talk to me 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Either title is probably suitable, but the current one more accurately describes the article content. I would expect an article called "Evolutionary psychology controversies" to contain accounts of specific events where someone objected to EP in some way. It does contain such content, but it also contains more general criticism. And as Memills points out, the proposed title could also refer to academic debates within the field. Nevertheless, I think the redirect should point here rather than Evolutionary psychology directly. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving sections to the Nature vs nurture article

Philosophy pursues evolutionary psychology as induced through involution and is the actuality of nature and nurture research activity^[1]76.89.144.249 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)arnold

The sections "Free will", "Reification", and "Reductionism" are not objections to EP specifically but would apply to any argument of "nature" being involved in the brain and behaviour. As such I propose moving them to the "Nature versus nuture" article.Miradre (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me 2nd that. I made the same proposal above (see "Move proposal" heading). Memills (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If the criticisms are specific to EP then it is not up to us to decide if they are mis-targeted - we include them here. If we have sources that make the counter-argument that these are misplaced criticisms then we include those. Let the sources do the talking - our opinions don't come into this. (This is assuming the criticism sources are reliable.) Joja lozzo 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem that the source for the 'Free will' criticism targets EP specifically. Joja lozzo 02:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved "Free Will" section to Nature versus nuture article as per above discussion.Miradre (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources for the "Reification fallacy" mention evolutionary psychology. So I propose moving that section also.Miradre (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "reification", introduced by Lewontin, was initially applied by Gould to sociobiology and in particular Spearman's concept of intelligence g. These attempted edits and this particular subject violate your topic ban. Even editing Nature and nurture violated your topic ban, as it has a section entitled "IQ debate". Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am making no comments regarding intelligence. Only regarding evolutionary psychology. Gould has of course written on many different things but there is not a single mention in this source of evolutionary psychology.Miradre (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing editing or moving something containing the word "reification". There are several sources mentioned in the text. One of them The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. Gould applied that to intelligence in that book. You used the word yourself just a few lines above. How can you even have this discussion? Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I can defend myself against accusations. I am not discussing intelligence or race. I am discussing whether the book mentions evolutionary psychology. It does not.Miradre (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The section itself contains a lengthy discussion of intelligence as an example of reification. Move it, delete it or alter it in any way and you will have clearly viola ted your topic ban. Even proposing to move it is a clear violation. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban is regarding the intersection of intelligence and race. Not their union. Furthermor, I am not discussing intelligence here. I am pointing out that the book does not mention evolutionary psychology at all.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you have misunderstood your topic ban completely. You are proposing to edit text on wikipedia containing a discussion of the "reification of intelligence" as put forward by Gould. That particular issue is very deeply related to the article Race and intelligence and is discussed in this precise context in History of the race and intelligence controversy. The evasiveness of your replies is not helpful. (I would normally discuss this on your talk page, but since you blank any advice I give, that approach is a non-starter.) Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion regarding intelligence is not the issue. Which is that the book does not mention evolutionary psychology at all. According to your twisted reasoning I could not edit an article on higher education because intelligence may be involved.Miradre (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing to edit the first paragraph of that section? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am taking up this section for discussion. See above.Miradre (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You can explain yourself on WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on Mathsci to provide a reference that specifically associates evolutionary psychology with the "reification fallacy." Unless that is forthcoming, as was done with the "free will" section, the "reification fallacy" section should be moved from this page to a more appropriate page. Memills (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for removing the reification fallacy section. Please discuss it here before taking unilateral action. Joja lozzo 22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Gould criticizes EP for reifying intelligence. If that's true, even if EP is not the main target of his criticism, then this is a part of the controversy. However, if interpreting Gould's intent is OR/SYN on someone's part then we'd need other reasons for keeping the section. I don't have access to the source so cannot help with that. Joja lozzo 22:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note the discussion above. IQ as a construct is accepted by psychology in general (see any intro psych textbook). If someone can provide a reference linking EP specifically to the "reification fallacy" (which is not a fallacy at all if constructs are properly understood), please do so. Otherwise, this "criticism" is simply a straw man, and, it is irrelevant to EP. Memills (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you here regarding the need for sources that involve EP explicitly but not about the utility of dissing the criticism and reinforcing bias. It doesn't matter how valid the criticism is. If it's there in reliable sources, it's our job to present it. Coming to this with a strong bias pro or con is good reason for less editing and more discussion here on the talk page. Joja lozzo 23:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources that are specifically targeting EP with the reification fallacy. Without such sources, as I have noted previously, it is inappropriate to include it here. Just makes this page look kinda silly by including a criticism that no one is making. Memills (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose we give it a few more days. If no one asks for more time or produces any criticism directly involving EP and reifying IQ by 9/14 (a week total) then remove it. We can always put it back if/when evidence shows up to support it. Joja lozzo 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Per above, removing the section. Memills (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

'Secrets of the Tribe' link

is dead. TheNuszAbides (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent petition to blank the page and make it a redirect

Drawing from the heated debates and edit wars in the talk section, and due to the organization of the material of this article, it seems some contributors are using the word “Criticism” as an excuse for showcasing opinions biased towards a particular viewpoint. Read through the article and the bias will become apparent. This entire article is overloaded with rebuttals tantamount to emotional bickering. The resources (e.g. interviews) and quotations (see Testability) present in the article incite an emotional response to these critiques against Evolutionary Psychology. This raises the question of whether or not this article represents a neutral point of view and should stand scrutiny. Specific problems:

The formatting of each individual section suggests contributions were made primarily by a single author.
The formatting of individual sections makes discerning individual viewpoints difficult and tiresome.
The History of the debate section contributes nothing to the article, much less does it explain the history of the debate (rather, it points to some other work). The inclusion of books in this section is unnecessary as their arguments are not elucidated. Furthermore, only the books purported to be rebuttals have links in the references.
Ambiguity in sections such as Fear and phobias as innate or learned does not lend an accessible conclusion to an average reader about what that particular data say about evolutionary psychology.
The constant use of “critics” as a subject confuses the reader. This is because the sheer amount of information given as rebuttals confounds the subject of the article, which informs the next point.
Is this article really talking about criticisms of evolutionary psychology or just defending it by offering a rebuttal for every critique?
There is a dearth of criticism from feminist scholars and women scientists in general.
There is a disproportionate amount of quotations from proponents of evolutionary psychology vs. their critics.
On a more meta-level, the main contributors of this article have not rectified the issues that have been present since 2008, which are presented here for convenience:
1. This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2008)
2. This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (July 2011)
3. This article possibly contains original research. (July 2011)
4. This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (June 2008)
Unnecessary elaborations are present (e.g. explaining “just-so” stories in Testability when a link is provided, defining evolutionary psychology in Reductionism and determinism, etc.). This article too often tries to explain Evolutionary Psychology’s basis (in addition to defining other terms) when article(s) for that already exist.

The Empirical evidence section is the least emotionally charged. It is concise, factual, and not corrupted by quotes (and therefore opinions) from experts of the field of study this article is purportedly critiquing. I do not condemn the usage of quotes or interviews as resources, but they seem to be placed to elicit an emotionally-charged rebuttal and result in a disparate representation of the proponents of Evolutionary Psychology. I argue that these problems are important and should be taken as a call to action to heavily reformat this page or get rid of it. Wolfpad4 (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A reading of WP:CRIT is probably first on the agenda here. Per WP:CRIT:

"Separate articles devoted to controversies.

Articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material. Articles dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic. Examples of articles devoted to a controversy include Whaling controversy, Global warming controversy... "

...This article qualifies as an "independent topic," as noted by the many cited books and articles devoted to the controversy itself.

"Articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources..."

This includes Criticism articles -- which are not to present only criticisms without rebuttals.

Controversies do tend to be "emotionally charged." But that is only a problem if a statement is included that is not properly referenced, is just an ad-hominem attack, or is clearly inappropriate. I don't see any such statements here. No doubt some statements, pro or con, may generate emotional reactions in readers with strong opinions either way, but that is irrelevant at WP.

If you would like to improve the article, I suggest taking a gradual, step-by-step approach. Propose a particular change here at the Talk page, get some feedback from others, and work collaboratively. Memills (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is just a laundry list of grievances against evolutionary psych. It looks like a pov fork to sidestep notability and due weight issues on the main page. It does relatively little to establish the relative prevalence of majority and minority views. Someone needs to figure out what of all this belongs on the main page, then blank the rest. Rhoark (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree this article is a POV fork. I believe the name should be changed to Reception of evolutionary psychology. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In agreement. This page reads like a bulleted list, sans bullets. Before a revote to move, it needs to be condensed, and there should be a consensus on what's worth keeping on the current page; then decide if what remains deserves a full page. To me, the only 'controversy' might include the reception of the male-fitness rape study. There are so many opposing cases here involving the interpretation of an individual, whereas "evolutionary psychologists" is used 37 times on the page. Aside from a handful of opposing academics, the opponents are rarely (if ever) cited. This page is one giant [Who?] tag. Event Nexus (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090906015525/http://www.stevens.edu:80/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/horganism/?p=11 to http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/horganism/?p=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509140205/http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~geherg/ep_not_evil.pdf to http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~geherg/ep_not_evil.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

^ "Psychology is a Hub Science". Association for Psychological Science Observer (September 2007)

[1] "Psychology is a Hub Science". Association for Psychological Science Observer (September 2007)

[1]