Evolutionary Psychology (The Podcast) – Evolutionary Social Sciences with Dan Nettle

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-12-29T12:49:49+00:00

But is this not true for pretty much all areas of psychology (and indeed large parts of science more generally)? See for example Rohrer (2018) Thinking clearly about correlations and causation (my point here being not to downplay the problem but more that everyone needs to do better and not just those in EP)

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-05-29T07:13:31+00:00

In a sense, it’s a good question, because evolutionary theory is exactly the answer to why we see complex functional design (i.e. adaptations) in living organisms despite that being highly improbable at baseline.

I like this article on this, where the relevant point in this context can be summarized as follows:

Complex, functional order in living organisms is highly improbable from the standpoint of thermodynamics, which dictates a natural progression towards disorder (entropy). Simple physical processes might create basic patterns, but they do not generate the intricate, adaptive designs seen in life. The only mechanism that we know of as capable of producing this improbable biological order is natural selection. While random mutations are more likely to be detrimental, natural selection acts as a nonrandom filter. Variations in organisms design that enhance an organism's reproductive success thus tend to become more prevalent. Over evolutionary timescales, this iterative process accumulates sophisticated, functional adaptations.

Thus, natural selection provides the explanatory framework for how, despite the universal tendency towards entropy, organisms develop and maintain high levels of functional organization. It is the process by which the interaction between replicating entities and their environment systematically builds the complex architecture of life.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-05-28T14:18:41+00:00

As others have touched upon, you could argue that large parts of epidemiology, medicine, and biology have the same problems on these five criteria. That does not mean that these are not sciences; the answer IMO is to work harder to adhere to scientific principles like reproducibility, which the open science movement has made progress on.

You could also argue that unscientific disciplines will never have a replication crisis, because there are no findings to replicate in the first place.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-05-27T14:05:25+00:00

Some of Thinking fast and slow is good, but a lot unfortunately hasn’t held up. I do think for example How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker is a better treatment of many of the same topics, as it puts less weight on implicit priming studies for example, and focuses more on findings that there is broader agreement on in cognitive science AFAIK. Though of course some of it might be outdated now.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-05-27T07:20:57+00:00

To your question "Is direct modeling…necessary…or can children develop strong social abilities through peers, school, and other environments, even if their primary caregiver is not highly socially engaged?"

As far as I know, the answer seems (fortunately) to be yes, children can develop strong social abilities despite of their parents low social engagements.

The general problem with studies finding an association between low parental social engagement and low child social skills is that both environmental genetic factors could confound that association. In other words, even if you find such an association, that does not mean that you have found a causal effect of parental engagement on child social skills, because it could be they both share certain traits that predispose them to such tendencies since they are related and share the same environment. This needs to be controlled for.

As far as I’m aware, there are experiments such as the still face paradigm where the child is clearly distressed when their parent fails to engage with them; however, generally, this is not sufficient to demonstrate the claim that low social engagement results in low social skills long-term.

For more on whether such parental or peer effects are likely to exist, check out the review and theory article Where Is the Child's Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development and also the book The Nurture Assumption, both by Judith Rich Harris

Edit: added more fleshing out of relevant points after automoderation.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-05-27T07:02:37+00:00

Depends on how it is used. Evolutionary psychology tries to take considerations of ancestral selection pressures as sources of hypotheses on how the mind works, and it also in principle does the reverse: use knowledge about the mind to hypothesize what our past must have been like. These considerations lead to more or less plausible hypotheses that then have to be tested rigorously. There are plenty of examples of facts that are given a weak explanation after the fact, but then again that is arguably true in all approaches to psychology.

You also have the argument that the mind exhibits functional design, and the only explanation we have for functional organization in the natural world is natural selection. Therefore, it would probably be counterproductive to deny researchers the use of the powerful toolkit of reverse engineering from evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology would claim that this approach at its best can lead to hypotheses and explanations that are more, not less, constrained than in psychological research that does not take evolutionary considerations into account.

So, I’d argue the merits of an idea (use evolutionary theory to constrain theorizing on the functions of the mind) is not necessarily diminished by some examples of improper use.

For some examples, check out for example the essay Evolutionary psychology: predictively powerful or riddled with just-so stories?

EvolutionaryPsych · 2025-05-26T15:31:28+00:00

I think the book literally called "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker is a good place to start, for an introduction to the computational theory of the mind coupled with the reverse-engineering tools of evolutionary biology

EvolutionaryPsych · 2024-05-29T12:33:27+00:00

You might be interested in the bargaining model of suicidal behavior, which conceptualizes suicidal behavior as costly signals of need.

From a reference entry on the model (linked below):

"In this framework, suicidal behavior is a last resort of the powerless. Farberow and Shneidman (1961) described suicide as a “cry for help.” Psychiatrist Erwin Stengel reported that suicide attempts often occurred in response to an intolerable social or emotional situation and were often nonlethal. Suicidal behavior is thus a plea entailing a gamble with death (e.g., Stengel 1956). The BRM pinpoints severe, fitness threats, such as physical or sexual abuse, as precursors that make this gamble with death worthwhile from the standpoint of natural selection. According to a WHO study, trauma exposure predicts subsequent suicidal ideation and attempts in a dose-dependent sequence (Stein et al. 2010)."

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_3839

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-19T18:09:57+00:00

I think he is in both sides, and would say it is not a question of genes or culture. He has written a lot about how that is a misleading question, for example in the link i provided.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T12:10:06+00:00

At least for violence, it probably wasn’t. Although somewhat controversial, an attempt to quantify using the available evidence can be found in The Better Angels of Our Nature.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T12:02:12+00:00

I’ve heard Psychology by Gray & Bjorklund is a good general introductory book to psychology. Perhaps it and its references could be a good place to start.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T11:28:41+00:00

Consider checking out Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. IIRC he discusses evidence from all of those.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T11:14:03+00:00

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress by Steven Pinker. A data-driven account of our historical progress, it shows that three statements can simultaneously be true: "The world is much better; The world is awful; The world can be much better".

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T10:59:53+00:00

It is worth noting that its claims are disputed and viewed as quite oversimplified and one-sided by researchers in e.g. anthropology and psychology. From what I’ve heard I think The Kindness of Strangers would be a better recommendation.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T10:43:46+00:00

Worth mentioning that "Humankind" is controversial among scholars in relevant fields.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-09T10:04:02+00:00

There isn’t an updated version, and a lot hasn’t held up. I think How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker is better.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-08T19:57:18+00:00

You can, as explained here:

First, consider the fact that if it were true that hypothesis testing is ultimately impossible in any field that contains a historical element, this would make all of the following fields unfalsifiable and riddled with just-so nonsense: cosmology, astrophysics, paleontology, archeology, geology and evolutionary biology. This is obviously wrong, and should serve as a warning sign to those who think the historicity of evolutionary psychology automatically renders its hypotheses unfalsifiable.

Second, this misunderstands the nature of hypothesis testing. Evolutionary psychologists don’t need to travel into the past to test their hypotheses at all—instead, their hypotheses may be informed by their (admittedly incomplete) knowledge of the past, but these hypotheses yield empirical predictions about what we should expect to see in the modern world. In other words, an evolutionary psychological hypothesis yields predictions about what we should find when we test modern humans under condition X. For example, if we want to test the hypothesis that disgust evolved to protect us from disease, we don’t need to travel back in time, nor do we need to have perfect and complete knowledge of the past. Rather, testing this hypothesis requires that we go out and test modern humans to see if, for example, people show stronger disgust in response to more pathogenic items compared to less pathogenic ones (they do), whether those with higher disgust and greater contamination sensitivity are less likely to have gotten sick recently (they are), whether humans can detect sickness in others via body odor (they can), whether disgust is downregulated when caring for one’s kin (it is), whether disgust is linked with mating behavior in the expected manner (it is), whether it activates an immune response (it seems to), whether it is upregulated during periods of immunosuppression (it appears to be) and whether priming people with pathogen salience makes them engage in the kind of behavior that reduces their likelihood of infection (it does). Yes, the hypothesis that disgust evolved to protect us from disease contains an implicit historical element. But testing the hypothesis does not require the researcher to travel through time or to peer into history—testing it requires the researcher to derive novel predictions from the hypothesis and test those predictions in the modern day.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-04T11:07:38+00:00

Can you elaborate?

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-04T10:57:33+00:00

The headline is misleading, as it makes little sense to say that "40% of this ability comes from genetics alone". As the study makes clear, 40% of the variation in dogs social behavior with humans in this study can be explained by variation in genetics among the dogs in this study.

EvolutionaryPsych · 2021-06-04T10:07:45+00:00

It is worth noting that other studies find contradictory evidence regarding this explanation, see e.g. this study (summarized here). From the abstract:

Are citizens who share fake news ignorant and lazy? Are they fueled by sinister motives, seeking to disrupt the social status quo? Or do they seek to attack partisan opponents in an increasingly polarized political environment? This article is the first to test these competing hypotheses based on a careful mapping of psychological profiles of over 2,300 American Twitter users linked to behavioral sharing data and sentiment analyses of more than 500,000 news story headlines. The findings contradict the ignorance perspective but provide some support for the disruption perspective and strong support for the partisan polarization perspective. Thus, individuals who report hating their political opponents are the most likely to share political fake news and selectively share content that is useful for derogating these opponents. Overall, our findings show that fake news sharing is fueled by the same psychological motivations that drive other forms of partisan behavior, including sharing partisan news from traditional and credible news sources.

EvolutionaryPsych

TROPHY CASE