Evolutionary Psychology Theory - Essay Example

Evolutionary Psychology Theory affiliation Psychology is an applied and academic discipline which involves the scientific study of behavior and mental functions. Evolutionary psychology studies mental abilities in light of the evolutionary progressions that shape them. It often examines the adaptive purposes of cognitive and emotional systems. This paper also looks at challenges that were faced by the evolutionary psychologists such as the complexity of the mind. Various evolutionary psychological approaches are also analyzed. Their weaknesses as well as strengths are also given. Professional criticism on the evolutionary theory is also looked at in this paper. It gives in detail what has led to the criticism of this theory. My personal responses about the evolutionary theory of psychology are given as well as a conclusion. Introduction Psychology is an applied and academic discipline which involves the scientific study of behavior and mental functions. Evolutionary psychology tries to understand mental abilities in light of the evolutionary progressions that shape them. It often examines the adaptive purposes of cognitive and emotional systems (Tsotsos, 1990). It involves investigation into how natural selection engineers someone to solve problems that he faces. The rationale of this theory follows from two premises. One is the existence and central significance of adaptation by natural selection while the second is the human brain, which is concerned with reasoning and calculations (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). Adaptive design is a product of natural selection. Complicated human organs arise incidentally from random generic drifts or as byproducts of something else (Tsotsos, 1990). The brain too solves adaptive problems such as depth color, communicating, reasoning, recognizing, walking and many more. These are done beyond the capacity of computers and robots. The brain displays signs of complex design that leads to complex adaptations hence natural selection (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). Challenges of the theory The theory of psychology is faced by a number of challenges. The greatest challenge is the need to take in huge amounts of data. Because of the mind’s complexity, theorists who study it must develop a complex strategy for dealing with findings (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). This involves identifying what to be ignored because it is insignificant and the finding to be actively sought out because they fill a gap in understanding. As far as meta-scientific questions have to do with differential values that is placed on different items of knowledge, they are also philosophical (Putnam, 2005). Judgments are presupposed by scientific inquiry even if these judgments are reasonable and left tacit. Coherence of judgments is critical even at observational level. The realization that values have a place in meta-theoretical discourse gives license to set sights at significantly higher only gathering reliable and empirical finding in regard to whatever psychological phenomena is being investigated. Psychology should, position itself so as to be able to echo a sentiment with full confidence. Psychology should be able to hold a theoretical claim to be true just as relativity is in physics (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). In psychology, truth straddles disciplinary boundaries. A different discipline can provide crucial information on which a psychological theory stands. Neuroscience can support a broad explanatory framework in psychology (Lee and Mumford, 2003). Corresponding theories of psychology can be developed from complex estimates arrived through procedures adapted from computer science which show that certain classes of algorithms are intractable, such as in the case of theories of visual perception and learning that ignore dimensionality issues (Tsotsos, 1990). When such considerations are not withstanding, psychological theories can be resilient (Greenwald, 1989). The cause of this is because theories are often stated in a conceptually inadequate language that in turn stems from glossing over interdisciplinary issues (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). It is strange that decades after a discipline, which was collectively referred as cognitive science, came to be recognized as interrelated, a call for more inter-disciplines in psychology should be a challenge (Lee and Mumford, 2003). The need for conceptual scope exists not only in trying to understand how cognitive tasks are addressed but also at a more basic level of understanding the nature of the activities themselves. Avoiding the question that the purpose of vision is to reconstruct the geometrical layout of the environment can lead to a decade long goose chase (Sloman, 1989). This leads to the realization that vision and cognition are interrelated and must henceforth fit in the same overarching psychological theory (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). Strengths and weaknesses Various psychological approaches have their strengths as well as weaknesses. Such is like the psychodynamic approach whose strength is that it focuses on the effects that experiences from ones childhood have on personality development (Lee and Mumford, 2003). This lead to the development of theories on childhood as well as the realization that childhood is important. Another strength is that this approach takes both nurture and nature into account. This approach has various weaknesses which include un-falsifiability (Sloman, 1989). This is because the assumptions cannot be scientifically proved right or wrong. Another weaknesses is that this approach is deterministic. It suggests that behavior is predetermined and that people lack free will (Lee and Mumford, 2003). Another psychological approach is the biological approach. The strength of this is that it is a scientific approach. The experiments are measured objectively and can be recurrent to ascertain reliability (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). This approach is also deterministic making it possible to treat persons with abnormal behavior as well as provide explanations for the behavior (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). The weakness of this approach is that it focuses excessively on the nature side leaving behind nurturing element. It suggests that behavior is determined by hormones and genes. Another weakness is that it is considered nomothetic. This is because it develops theories about disorders and generalizes them to apply to everybody. It fails to consider that humans are different and unique (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). A third approach is the cognitive approach. The strength of this method is that it looks at thoughts that were left behind by other psychologists among them behavior psychologists. This include memory, perceptions and attention (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). A second strength is that this approach applies cognitive therapies which include Rational Emotive Therapy which has successfully transformed illogical thoughts into logical ones (Sloman, 1989). However, this approach is considered reductionist because it reduces human behavior to individual progressions such as attention and memory. Another weakness is that it is considered too mechanical. This is because it compares humans to computers, making it a weakness because computers are less complex as compared to human minds (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). The fourth approach is the behaviorists approach. This approach has successfully applied classical and operant situation to theories which is useful for treating phobias. Another strength is that it uses scientific approaches of research, which makes experiments objective observable and measurable (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). A weakness in this approach is that it is known to focus too much on the nurture side leaving aside nature. This approach has also raised issues because it uses animals in experiments. Animals lack power to willingly take part and are unable to withdraw if displeased (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Personal response The concepts of evolutionary psychology theory are very true in today’s world. This is because childhood is known to influence one’s personality and future life. For example if a person was raised in a violent home when he was a child, he is likely to be violent when he grows up (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Likewise if a person was raised from a poor background, he is likely to work hard so as to change his conditions. As the Psychodynamic approach suggests (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). Childhood experiences play a very important role in developing personality. A great part of one’s personality is influenced by his childhood experiences. The way a person was nurtured as a child also influences his personality. This plays a very important part in determining his personality such as ID, Ego or Super Ego (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Professional Criticism When it comes to the human brain, evolutionary psychologists are accused of ignoring the alternative that the human brain is made large by the processes of natural selection (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). However, most mental properties and potentials are spandrels that is non adaptive side consequences of building a something with such structural complication (Sloman, 1989). This hypothesis has been considered by evolutionary psychologists and it has been found to be unhelpful (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). The hypothesis is rooted on false dichotomy between conventional natural selection operating in the engineering mode and the non-adoptive byproducts that may be used later for useful purposes. The distinction on which spandrels work in addition to and sometimes against natural selection is spurious (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). Human beings are clever and may therefore co-opt their spandrels such as in the case of using the nose to hold eyeglasses. Explaining the evolution of human intellect in terms of their abilities to co-opt spandrels is circular (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Large human minds are not necessarily more complicated or smarter than small brains. Largeness of the brain is a byproduct of selecting more complex and hence more demanding computational abilities that enabled ancestors deal with the natural world, tools and also with fellow human beings. A rejection of this argument does not place non adaptive features outside the interest of evolutionary psychologists (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). These non-adaptive explanations have been in the field ever since. The most general view in this field is that other vital human activities are spandrels which include religion, dreams, music art and science (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982). Evolutionary psychology is more fatuous because it thinks completely about the environment which ancestors evolved. This is always not in the definition of science because the ancestral environment cannot be tested and is only a matter of speculation (Sloman, 1989). The status of language in cognitive science has led to a realization that cognition might be amendable to explanations within the same theoretical framework. The project of naturalization phenomenology is the greatest challenge in this domain, which if successful could offer a resolution of the problem of consciousness hence offering a convincing explanation of the phenomenality of experience (Sloman, 1989). Progress in this dimension can obtained through a sustained interdisciplinary effort in philosophy and informed by other disciplines such as mathematics, neuroscience, computer science and psychology. The role of philosophy in this effort is very critical especially in the art of argument and persuasion (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Conclusion Evolutionary psychology has provided a lot of insights in this discipline. Human behavior, human brain as well as the art of natural selection have been greatly explained by this theory. The theory has also looked at how the environment as well as childhood has helped in the development of human characteristics (Marr and Poggio, 1977; Marr, 1982), personality and behavior. The theory also contributes much on the identification of mental disorders as well as the offering solutions to these disorders (Sloman, 1989). The theory also brings in light the complexity of the human mind. Other psychological theories developed have borrowed so much from it. It however has faced its challenges and has been greatly criticized. Critics have said that it compares human being to computer (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). The theory has also been considered as deterministic and that it suggests that behavior is predetermined and that people lack free will. The assumptions of the theory can also not be scientifically measured and are therefore not objective (Sloman, 1989). References Bird, J., Curtis, B., Putnam, T., Robertson, G., & Tickner, L. (2005). Mapping the Futures (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis. Greenwald, M., Cook, E., & Lang, P. (1989). Affective judgment and psychophysiological response: Dimensional covariation in the evaluation of pictorial stimuli. Journal Of Psychophysiology. In their journal, Greenwald and Lang study psychological responses and judgement. They explain how various factors affect an individuals response or judgment. The offer great knowledge into the field of psychology KUBE, P., & TSOTSOS, J. (1991). ON TSOTSOS, JK (1990) ANALYZING VISION AT THE COMPLEXITY LEVEL. BBS 13: 423-469. COMMENTARY. AUTHORS RESPONSE. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 14(4), 768--773. Loftus, E., & Palmer, J. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal Of Verbal Learning And Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585--589. Loftus and Palmer, give and explain the four approaches used by evolutionary phychologiists. They further give the weakneses as well as strenghts of each approach. This journal also offers a criktical review in terms of strengthes and weaknesses of each approach Marr, D., & Poggio, T. (1979). A computational theory of human stereo vision. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 204(1156), 301--328. Marr and Poggio study how the human mind works and how it affects other elements s as vision. They give great insight on how the human mind influences the process of natural selection. Pinker, s. (1997). Evolutionary Psychology: An Exchange by Steven Pinker, Werner Kalow, and Harold Kalant. Nybooks.com. Retrieved 21 May 2014, from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/oct/09/evolutionary-psychology-an-exchange/ This books shows an indepth analysis of the Evolution Theory. Describes the Evolutionary Theory of psychology in detail. It also states the challennges that were faced by the Evolutionary Psychologists. Pinker’s book also review the theory critically stating its strengths as well as weaknesses. In criticising the theory, Pinker outlays the weaknesses that are clearly explained as well as shows area that were left behind or that could have been useful to the psychologists so as to develop a more coprehensive theory. Read More