With the trend of Evolutionary thinking in psychology we have stumbled across a new difficulty in our line of examinations: Filling in the blanks. Whereas contemporary studies are aimed at finding contemporary information they only serve as an indicator of previous lines of existence. That is the very nature of understanding Evolution in every field of science, one is forever working backwards. Whereas the Biological approach appears to rely on more exact information, psychology is tremendously more handicapped because it speaks of behavior that has only been selectively recorded over time. We are thus dependent on our own imagination and every conclusion based primarily on imagination must, in the scientific arena, be greatly suspect.

That Evolutionary Psychology is essentially speculation seems to escape the majority of popular writers occupying themselves with varying degrees of feministic articles. Man (as a gender) is reduced to a sperm donor with a complete lack of desire pertaining to the raising of a child, per example. And rape might be a natural phenomenon based primarily on the man’s intrinsic desire to shoot as many sperm cells as he can each and every second. That this makes no sense beyond the limited perspective of man-hatred is of less importance. “Evolution!” They exclaim when asked for proof and the underlying reasoning for their ideas. In reality it makes little sense that most men ever behaved in the fashion most often subscribed to them. Man ’s biological makeup, so they say, is based on securing offspring. Were this true, it would be in the man’s best interest to not only create a child, but to provide in its basic needs as well. This means bringing food to the nest, teaching the child things the mother cannot teach it, etc. And it most certainly, beyond an iota of doubt, means keeping the female raising the child when the man is gone happy. Why? Because an unhappy woman has reduced maternal qualities.

If evolution were at play, then, and it almost certainly was…it makes sense that men best capable of maintaining this healthy home environment were favored by women, increasing their odds at reproduction. This, of course, is judged by women at the onset of a relationship as means of preliminary evaluation. Since most men aren’t and probably never were the best of actors, it is by all means a reasonable assumption to think that most women were reasonably successful at evaluating their partners before the act of sexual intercourse. If this is true, and men weren’t highly invested in shooting sperm (but in stead the maintaining of a steady home environment for the young and perhaps themselves as well) the feminist outlook seems fairly shaky.

But it is not merely the woman’s preference that is dictating in a relationship. One can hardly change the essence of a creature merely be desiring it. As noted earlier, the perspective on man seems flawed because of the obvious hole in the reasoning accompanying it. If a man wishes to secure offspring that man must desire a healthy environment for the child. Take notice of the word “secure” If there is something intrinsic in a man’s desire towards offspring then this must take a more solid form then the simple spreading of one’s genetic material.

Do not, however, be misguided by the above. As I mentioned at the very beginning of this writing Evolutionary Psychology is working backwards…limited to our imagination. So the way I pieced the puzzle together, although sensible to me, does not necessarily reflect any kind of truth. That is what this writing is about…shedding reasonable doubt. Until Evolutionary Psychology finds a way of validating its (sometimes)wild claims to the certainty of an exact science (that’s the deep, deep problem of Psychology to begin with) one must act with supreme caution making any kind of statement based on it.

There is nothing more dangerous to the development of our species than education without the proper intelligence to use it. What we end up with is a blind following that uses “science” to back up its personal opinions. This is, in its most basic format, tunnel vision. Every proficient thinker can warn you about those dangers. As long as there is a multitude of explanations available the mind must remain, above all else, open. Anything less is not only a disservice to oneself but also to the people one comes into contact with.

An extreme case of this horrendous use of Evolution was recently in the Dutch media in which a “scientific” explanation was given for male behavior. Men, so it was concluded, looked up at women out of the desire to find a new reproductive mate…whether the man is already in a relationship or not. The reason? “Evolution!” The man looks for mates! If the man looks for mates, and looks up at females, then surely he looks up at females because he is looking for a mate! The fallacy in this is apparent to any moderately trained thinker. The looking up comes before taking active notice of the woman. When looking up, one sees the woman. But one cannot prove at all that the man looks up because he is scanning for a mate. There is a connection (looking up—>seeing woman) But Connection does not necessitate Causality. Might there be another reason for the man to look at the woman? Did he appreciate her dress? Her haircut? Was his interest academic? If a man looks up at a woman because he finds her attractive, does he then necessarily desire her? We don’t know…we don’t care. We don’t care because our preconception has been accounted for.

Evolution!

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 12:24 am and is filed under Psychology, blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.