Are stone-age genes created out of whole cloth? Evaluating claims about the evolution of behavior

Nash, Alison

doi:10.1007/s10624-014-9354-1

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On account of the fact that EP fails to conform to the ‘rigorous standards’ of both biology and psychology, and is also unable to explain the relation between genes and the context, the theory fails to provide an complete understanding of evolution of behavior (Nash 2014 ). The only context that is considered relevant is the environment of the early ancestors or EEA, conditions that we can only speculate about.…”

Section: Fragmented Structures Fragile Branches and Decontextualizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musings about Metaphors and Models: the Need to Put Psychology Together Again

Chaudhary

Sriram

2020

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zagaria, Andò & Zennaro (2020) raise several issues for the study of the human condition, highlighting the precarious status of psychology on account of a core weakness: The absence of consensus about fundamental concepts. Using the metaphor of a giant, albeit one with feet of clay, the authors develop an argument about how evolutionary psychology is the best possible candidate to advance a unified paradigm on account of theoretical consistency. In this commentary we examine the metaphors and models invoked in the article and suggest alternative perspectives on the grounds that a grand singular solution and consistency in definitions are not urgent requirements for understanding the complexity, diversity, and nuances of the human condition. We argue that plurality and low consensus can be taken as productive and functional; precisely because psychological and cultural phenomena are always characterized by uncertainty in irreversible time. Cultural psychology is a valuable paradigm, inclusive of universal and individual processes in ways that provide more appropriate resolution for cultural pluralism. Every definition of psychological phenomena, however obscure and contested, has arisen from theoretical speculation arising from a specific perspective.

show abstract

Section: Fragmented Structures Fragile Branches and Decontextualizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musings about Metaphors and Models: the Need to Put Psychology Together Again

Chaudhary

Sriram

2020

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After all, evolutionary psychology's self-proclaimed "interactionism" has been taken to task for promoting a predeterministic conceptualization of behavior and development wholly incompatible with the DS perspective on epigenesis [e.g., Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2003a;Nash, 2014]. However, as Lickliter and Honeycutt [2003b] began to explore over a decade ago, EDP's efforts to take development seriously fall victim to the same criticisms leveled against evolutionary psychology.…”

Section: Integrating Development and Evolution: The Proposed Synthesimentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Development and Evolution in Psychological Science: Evolutionary Developmental Psychology, Developmental Systems, and Explanatory Pluralism

Witherington

Lickliter

2016

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New attempts in psychological science at integrating developmental (individual-level) and evolutionary (population-level) accounts of phenotypic stability and variability have achieved increasing prominence of late. Foremost among such attempts is the field of evolutionary developmental psychology (EDP). EDP proposes that selective pressures in evolution inform psychological development through a synthesis of the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian selectionist perspective embraced by evolutionary psychology and the developmental dynamics perspective endorsed by developmental systems theory. We examine the theoretical assumptions behind selectionist and developmental perspectives and argue that both perspectives are ontologically incompatible. We provide an alternative framework for integrating developmental and evolutionary explanations that transcend this ontological division of selectional and developmental perspectives. This framework promotes a pluralistic approach that moves beyond traditional antecedent/consequent, mechanistic views of causality and embraces both functional (part-to-whole) and structural (whole-to-part) modes of explanation as distinct, equally legitimate, and simultaneously applicable perspectives in understanding phenotypic stability and variability over time.

show abstract

“…1Researchers who espouse the perspective that gender differences are a result of biological or evolutionary factors will sometimes make blanket claims that “of course, the environment matters, too” without engaging with the idea that if the sociocultural environment fully accounts for the differences they document and then explanations about the inherent properties of these gender differences are rendered irrelevant (see Nash, 2014). Although we do not believe this was the intent of Frankenbach et al (2022), it is worth noting that this reasoning has been strategically used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%