HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abed, R. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Abed, R. T.

A defence of evolutionary psychology

Rotherham District General Hospital, Moorgate Road, Rotherham S60 2UD, UK

EDITED BY MATTHEW HOTOPF

The letter by Rose & Lucas (2001), with its unconventional structure (having been written by Lucas with a lengthy quote from Rose but then signed by Rose as the first author), repeats the misleading arguments that can be found in abundance in Rose & Rose (2000). Professor Rose claims to welcome a hypothesis-driven scientific discipline of evolutionary psychology but laments what is, according to him, the present state of the discipline that is no more than an "untestable bunch of anecdotes based upon a priori ideological convictions". He is also indignant at my suggestion that he is in effect in the camp that holds that the human mind is a blank slate.

As to the first point, his position is far from credible. He contends that the hypothesis that the human psychological make-up was formed during the Pleistocene is incorrect and that this is somehow fatal to the whole enterprise of evolutionary psychology. In fact, the contention that the human psyche or mind formed primarily during the Pleistocene is no more than an empirical question that requires testing through evidence. If evidence from various sources shows this to be incorrect, then this idea should certainly be modified or abandoned but, whichever way this question will be settled, it will not herald the end of evolutionary psychology. The core idea of evolutionary psychology is the assumption that the human mind has a species-specific architecture that contains a degree of variability and plasticity depending on environmental influences, but (and this is the most important point) it is not infinitely malleable, as the standard social science model would have us believe. It is rather surprising that Rose, in the same breath, claims to reject the tabula rasa view of the mind and rejects any hypotheses that suggest it may have any definable architecture on the grounds that conceding this is genetically deterministic. If the mind is not a blank slate, then it should have some architecture. For a Darwinian, this architecture is partly (not wholly) determined by our genetic heritage which, in turn, has been shaped by aeons of selection in a particular type of environment (whatever that may be). We can argue about what this architecture may look like through proposing hypotheses and empirically testing them.

Rose chooses to ignore the abundant evidence of the vibrancy of evolutionary psychology where hypotheses and theories are continually tested, debated, modified and discarded. It is a fast-moving field where one can quickly be overtaken by new ideas and new evidence. Take, for example, the waist-to-hip ratio that Rose has cited. The suggestion was made in the early 1990s that there may be a universally attractive human female shape that signals maximum reproductive value. This triggered transcultural comparison studies by evolutionary psychologists that showed that there were exceptions to this (see for example Marlowe & Westman, 2001). It is likely that the hypothesis will now be modified to incorporate the effect of ecological influences. There are many other examples of such vigorous hypothesis-testing such as in the area of human sexuality where major theoretical modifications have taken place based upon empirical findings (see Buss, 2000).

REFERENCES

Buss, D. (2000) The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love or Sex. London: Bloomsbury.

Marlowe, F. & Westman, A. (2001) Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 481-489.[CrossRef]

Rose, H. & Rose, S. (eds) (2000) Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. London: Jonathan Cape.

Rose, S. & Lucas, P. (2001) Evolutionary psychology revisited (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 573.[Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Ayton The evolutionary psychology debate The British Journal of Psychiatry, March 1, 2002; 180(3): 280 - 280. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Rose Revisiting evolutionary psychology and psychiatry The British Journal of Psychiatry, December 1, 2001; 179 (6): 558 - 558. [Full Text]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Abed, R. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Abed, R. T.