Understanding evolutionary psych misconceptions and promoting responsible communication.
There has been recent discussion within evolutionary psychology circles about the misuse of evolutionary psychological research findings, prompted by a piece in the Boston Globe from leading evolutionary psychologist Daniel Conroy-Beam. To say that the debate about it has been heated is somewhat of an understatement, with some researchers taking exception to Conroy-Beam’s claim that evolutionary psychologists have been negligent and complacent in the misuse of their findings by online extremist groups.
article continues after advertisement
Source: Sora Shimazaki / Pexels
I appreciate the concern that people have over the misrepresentation of our work, and see it often in my private practice with male clients. As an evolutionary psychologist and therapist, I thought I’d offer my perspective on how our research can be misunderstood, misrepresented, or misused, and what researchers—and those who read our work—can do about it.
How Evolutionary Psychology Research Can Be Misinterpreted
As a therapist, I’m familiar with cognitive distortions, or thinking errors, which are often deeply embedded into the discourse of several online sub-cultures, including the “manosphere” and “female dating strategy” communities. These distortions can significantly affect how people interpret research findings—but the research findings, too, if not communicated in a nuanced way, might lend themselves to the development of distorted thinking. Here are some examples:
Magnification and catastrophizing: These thinking errors involve blowing things out of proportion and assuming the worst will happen. Because many evolutionary psychologists study the “dark side” of human behaviour, such as paternity uncertainty and infidelity, these can easily be catastrophised and seen as common occurrences and inevitable outcomes, creating unnecessary anxiety and mistrust in relationships. While young scientists might be fascinated by studies on mate-swapping or the dual mating hypothesis, lay readers might worry that partners are destined to cheat on them.
The “shoulds” and “musts”: In therapy, we look for “shoulds” and “musts” as signs of rigid rules that people impose on themselves or others. Evolutionary psychology often deals with the “is-ought” problem, where people mistakenly believe that describing a phenomenon is the same as justifying it, and the “naturalistic fallacy,” where people think if something is natural, it’s good. For example, research shows that mating behavior can change with the local sex ratio, with the sex in higher supply tending to lower their standards for a mate. Misinterpreting this could lead to unrealistic rules and expectations, such as thinking individuals “should” lower their standards based on statistical trends found in the broader population.
Mind-reading: Assuming what others are thinking without solid evidence can lead to a lot of miscommunication and conflict. Research provides useful starting points for what others might think, but is a poor alternative to approaching people as individuals. For instance, while men generally value physical attractiveness in partners more than women, assuming all men prioritize looks in the same way can harm relationships, or get in the way of forming them in the first place.
Overemphasis on sex differences: Focusing too much on differences between men and women can create a polarized view, ignoring commonalities. In our 2013 article, “The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock,” we emphasized the importance of discussing sex differences without oversimplifying them. Saying “men do this” and “women do that” drops the necessary nuance that these differences might be common or typical but not absolute, fostering divisive thinking.
Perceived lack of agency: Evolutionary psychology can help explain behavioral tendencies but it doesn’t negate free will. For example, communities practicing consensual non-monogamy (CNM) can use insights about the evolution of jealousy to manage emotions better. Despite evolutionary influences, millions fight urges to overeat through dieting, showing that we have control over our behaviors. Misunderstanding this can make people feel powerless, thinking they—or others—are slaves to their instincts. An example of this might be the concept of “femoids” in the incel community—the idea that women are “hardwired” to make certain choices without thinking.
article continues after advertisement
How We Can Address These Misinterpretations
Researchers need to acknowledge that their audience now includes the general public, not just academics. With increased open access to scientific articles, we must also communicate our findings more responsibly.
Avoid absolutes. Acknowledge both general trends and exceptions—for example, while men have a tendency to prefer short-term mating more than women, there is a lot of variability. It’s fairly easy to find women who love casual sex and men who don’t.
Emphasize similarities, not just differences. Offer a balanced view—e.g. in the study of sex differences in the desire for social status and physical attractiveness in a partner, not forgetting that both share a stronger preference for kindness.
Highlight agency. Make it clear that understanding influences doesn’t imply a lack of free will. Just because there might be evolutionary roots to jealousy, for instance, doesn’t mean it’s an emotion outside of our control.
Reader Responsibilities
Readers, too, have a role to play to ensure they develop and accurate understanding of evolutionary psychological research. Enjoying evolutionary psychology, and science in general, means understanding that conclusions are not set in stone. While evolutionary psychology currently has some of the most replicable results in all of psychology, even effects and hypotheses that appear strongly supported now could be found to be wrong in the future.
Science is about the pursuit of truth, which sometimes clashes with personal beliefs. When this happens, there can be a temptation to cherry-pick—a form of cognitive distortion we call “mental filtering”—that can lead to the development of beliefs out of line with reality.
Being open to new insights and considering counter-evidence promotes flexible thinking, which is also a sign of good mental health.
article continues after advertisement
Moving Forward Together
The misuse of research isn’t unique to evolutionary psychology, but this field’s public appeal brings unique challenges and opportunities. Rather than blaming the field or specific researchers, we should aim for better communication practices. Working together to develop best practice guidelines for communicating evolutionary research could ensure our research is understood and applied responsibly, promoting a more accurate view of human nature that doesn’t easily lend itself to distorted thinking.
Recognizing our dual audience of scientists and the general public, we can enhance the impact of our work and mitigate its misuse. Through balanced communication and responsible interpretation, we can contribute to a more informed and thoughtful discourse on evolutionary psychology and relationships.
References
Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock: Does Evolutionary Psychology Exaggerate Human Sex Differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899
Source link : https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/darwin-does-dating/202406/combating-the-misuse-of-evolutionary-psychology-research?amp
Author :
Publish date : 2024-06-30 14:31:38
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
