Inglés

Técnico II
Pc3
 el equipo
Angela Emely Tatiana Luis antuanet
Jhadiel
Vasquez Sanchez Juarez Pareja melo
Peña castilla
Gastelú Gobea Cano Pasache

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

01 Development of
evolutionary psychology:
Charles Darwin predicted that psychology would
be based on the theory of evolution, and more
than 100 years later, this theory began to be
applied to the human mind, brain and behavior.
Evolutionary psychology holds that the human
mind consists of programs designed by natural
selection to solve problems of survival and
reproduction.
02 Criticism of evolutionary
psychology:
Hilary and Steven Rose, in their book
“Alas, Poor Darwin”, criticize
evolutionary psychology as a Arguments against
“fashionable ideology” with
simplistic and culturally pernicious
explanations of human behavior, based
on weak empirical evidence and
erroneous premises.
03 Repetitive accusations:
Common criticisms of evolutionary psychology
include its reductionist, deterministic and
adaptationist character. These criticisms have
already been addressed on multiple occasions.
Some critics also misinterpret evolutionary
psychology or criticize versions that are not
recognized by experts in the field.
04 Adaptationist approach:
Evolutionary psychology uses an
adaptationist approach to investigate the
human mind, starting from recurring
problems faced by our ancestors and
designing experiments to test alternative
solutions. This method is compared to the
reverse engineering used in biology.
Review of "Alas, Steven Rose's acceptance
05
Poor Darwin: and objections:
Although Steven Rose accepts the basic
premise of evolutionary psychology, he
opposes its application to understanding the
Evolutionary
psychological mechanisms underlying human
social behavior. He argues that not enough
is known about the conditions under which
Psychology" our ancestors evolved and that the
Pleistocene period is a flawed approach.
06 Cultural and historical
variability:
The Roses also argue that evolutionary psychology's
claims about universal features of human social
psychology fail to consider cultural and historical
variability and the role of emotions in mental life.
They use Daly and Wilson's research on stepfathers
as an example of the empirical shortcomings of this
discipline.
Evolutionary psychologists use information about
human evolutionary history to make and test
predictions about psychological adaptations. Despite
this, the Roses claim that not enough is known
about the Pleistocene to make this approach viable.
However, they do not provide concrete criticism of
the methods used to investigate the past nor of the
predictions made by evolutionary psychologists.
They also question the idea that the human mind
has not undergone significant changes in the last
10,000 years, arguing that evolution may be faster
than thought. Despite this, they present no concrete
evidence that this is true. The idea that all humans
share a universal human nature despite the diversity
of behaviors and cultures is explained by the notion
that psychological mechanisms are condition-
dependent, that is, their behavior varies depending
on the economic or ecological circumstances in
which they live. those that are found.
 Evolutionarity
psychology
Evolutionary psychology neglects emotions is no longer appropriate as it is a cognitive and architectural
information processing machine. Information theory is a branch of mathematics used to capture how the
inputs of a system relate to its outputs. Consequently, information does not exclude "emotion."

Tooby and Cosmides write that it is important to present exactly what we mean by cognitive level or
information processing. Poor Darwin presents no research to refute any of the empirical claims of
evolutionary psychology. Hilary Rose does not dispute the increased incidence of stepparent abuse, but
rather that its "obvious" causes are better founded than unverifiable evolutionary speculation.
Evolutionary psychology is a more specific discipline and theory than psychology and psychology.
 Politicalanimals.
It did not originate from any significant advance in biology, nor has it been driven
by a relevant new theory in this field. Now Hillary Ross recognizes that
evolutionary psychology is not very present in public opinion and can be accepted
by different political currents, such as the Darwinian left of Peter Singer, the
economic liberalism of Matt Ridley and the perspective of Helena Cronin. These
researchers point out that facts and values can differ at certain points, however,
when it comes to establishing a political or social agenda, science can be used to
achieve said objectives. In political terms, evolutionary psychology is
indistinguishable from other branches of science, and to prove that it has a
political agenda, Rose must show that the political stances of its researchers can
lead to scientific errors. Evolutionary psychology that is based on invalid claims is
like a poorly built house. His ideas about how the rate of evolution changes are
consistent with conventional theories of biological evolution, and he maintains that
the nature of humanity and the world as a whole can be explained in the same
way.
 REFERENCIAS
Alcock, J. (2000). Misbehavior: How Stephen Jay Gould is wrong about evolution. Boston Review. (Available at:
http://www polisci.mit.edu/BostonReview/BR25.2/a lcock.html ).
Barkow, J. H., L. Cosmides, et al., Eds. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psy chology and the generation
of culture. New York, Oxford University Press. Betzig, L., Ed. (1997). Human Nature: A criti cal reader. New
York, Oxford Univer sity Press.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, Basic Books/HarperCollins.
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The new science of the mind.
Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Buss, D. M. (2000). The Dangerous Passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and
sex, Free Press. Buss, D. M., M. G. Haselton, et al. (1988). “Adaptations, exaptations and span drels.”
American Psychologist 55(5): 533-48.
Cartwright, J. (2000). Evolution and Human Behaviour: Darwinian perspectives on human nature, Macmillan.
Churchland, S. and R. Grush (1999). Computa tion and the Brain. The MIT Encyclope dia of the Cognitive
Sciences. R. A. Wilson and F. C. Kiel, MIT Press. Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby (1992). Cognitive adaptations for
social exchange. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychol ogy and the Generation of Culture. J. Barkow, L.
Cosmides and J. Tooby. New York, Oxford University Press:
Rose, H. (2000). Colonising the Social Sci ences? Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology.
H. Rose and S. Rose. London, Jonathan Cape: 106-128.
Rose, H. and S. Rose (13/7/2000). You've got a lot to answer for, Charlie Darwin. The Guardian (Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Arti cle/0,4273,4039888,00.html ).
Rose, H. and S. Rose (22/6/2000). Give us the proof. New Scientist. (Available at:
http://bio.univet.hu/SALVE/00news/beh av_ecol/ns-behavecol-00-06 Rose_essay.html ).
Rose, H. and S. Rose (2000). Introduction. Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. H.
Rose and S. Rose. London, Jonathan Cape: 1-13. Rose, S., Ed. (1982). Towards a Liberatory Bi ology. London-New
York, Allison & Busby. Rose, S. (1997). Lifelines: Biology, freedom, determinism. London, Penguin Books. Rose,
S. (2000). Escaping Evolutionary Psy chology. Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. H.
Rose and S. Rose. London, Jonathan Cape: 247-265.
Rose, S., R. C. Lewontin, et al. (1984). Not in Our Genes. London, Penguin Books. Salmon, C. and D. Symons
(2001). Warrior Lovers: Erotic fiction, evolution and female sexuality. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Symons,
D. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality.
New York, Oxford University Press. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The
evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attrac tiveness. Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture.
 P. R. Abramson and S. D. Pinkerton. Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 80-118. Thain, M. and M. Hickman
(1995). The Pen guin Dictionary of Biology.
London, Penguin. Tooby, J. (1999). “The most testable concept in biology, Part 1.” HBES Newsletter (Fall)
(Available at: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep /viewfall99.html ).
Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides (1990). “The past explains the present: Emotional adapta tions and the structure of
ancestral envi ronments.” Ethology and Sociobiology 11: 375-424.
Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides (1992). The psycho logical foundations of culture. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture. J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby. New York, Oxford University
Press: 19-136.
Tooby, J. and I. DeVore, Eds. (1987). The re construction of hominid behavioral evo lution through strategic
modeling. The Evolution of Human Behavior: Primate models. Albany, N. Y., SUNY Press. Trivers, R. (1981).
Sociobiology and politics. Sociobiology and Human Politics. E. White. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and
Company: 1-43.
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and Natu ral Selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought.
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
gracias
www.unsitiogenial.es