Content uploaded by Paula Wright
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paula Wright on Oct 11, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2015
www.PosterPresentations.com
MALE…………………………………....…FEMALE
Controversy about Darwinism is as old as Darwinism itself. The derisory sarcasm of one of
Darwin’s first reviewers would not be amiss on social media today: ”If a monkey has become
a man—what may not a man become?” (Leifchild & J.R, 1859). Today, evolutionary
psychology (henceforth EP) is psychology informed by the moderately uncontroversial
perspectives of evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby,
1992),yet it attracts as much fashionable, low- and highbrow mischaracterisation as
Darwin’s theory did in Victorian England (Winegard, Winegard, & Deaner, 2014). By turns,
EP has been declared “sexist, deterministic, and reductionist” (Liesen & Liesen, 2011),
heteronormative (Caplan, 2010), androcentric (Lindsey & Christy, 1997) and “justifying
patriarchy” (Smith & Konik, 2011).This poster provides evidence to challenge these claims.
Brunel University, London. 2021.
Paula Wright
Evolutionary Psychology:
Progressive or Regressive?
Far from being a male dominated discipline created to
promote male patriarchal hegemony, from its inception EP has
had a high ratio of female scholars, including two founders, in
Leda Cosmides and Margo Wilson. The trend in female
participation continues, and has led to research findings which
show that females are far from passive pawns in the
evolutionary struggle to survive and reproduce (Buss &
Duntley, 1999).
I pay tribute to many of these notable women - psychologists,
human behavioural ecologists, anthropologists, zoologists,
and philosophers - in the gallery above. There are many more.
The Venn diagram shows a summary of ratings by sex using
entire international sample (N =9474) where all preferences
overlap. None are exclusively male or female, but significant
differences do occur of small to medium magnitude (Buss, 1989.
Replicated in 2020 by Walter, Conroy-Beam, Buss, et al)Sex
2020). Both men and women agreed the top four traits they
prioritised in potential long term mates were mutual affection,
dependability, emotional stability (r=+.92) After this, priorities
begin to diverge, but only by degree. Sex differences and
similarities are calculated mean scores and allow for significant
overlap between sexes and variation within sex (Okami &
Shackelford, 2001).
Thus, claims that EP promotes strict sex binaries are not
supported.
In 2005, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in
conjunction with several sex researchers including (Lippa, 2007),
References
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1081-1093.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-14.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. (1999). The evolutionary psychology of patriarchy: Women are not passive pawns in men's game. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 219-220.
Caplan, P. J. (2010). Teaching critical thinking about psychology of sex and gender.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 553-557.
Leifchild, & J.R. (1859). [Review of] on the origin of species.
Liesen, L. T., & Liesen, L. T. (2011). Feminists, fear not evolutionary theory, but remain very cautious of evolutionary psychology
Lindsey, L. L., & Christy, S. (1997). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (3rd ed.).
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(2),
Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12(1), 186-241.
Richards, J. R., Human Nature After Darwin. Human Nature After Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction. (2005) Routledge.
Richards, J.R., The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry. (1994). Penguin Women’s Studies.
Ridge, S. R., & Feeney, J. A. (1998). Relationship history and relationship attitudes in gay males and lesbians: Attachment style and gender differences. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 32(6), 848-859.
Smith, C. A., & Konik, J. (2011). Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology: Allies, Adversaries, or both? Special issue. Sex Roles, 64(9).
Tinbergen, N. (2005). On aims and methods of ethology. Animal Biology (Leiden, Netherlands), 55(4), 297-321.
Vandermassen, G. (2004). Sexual selection: A tale of male bias and feminist denial. The European Journal of Women's Studies, 11(1), 9-26.
Vandermassen, G. Who’s Afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating Feminism and Evolutionary Theory. Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.
WILLIS, J. T. (2014). Partner preferences across sexual orientations and biological sex: Partner preferences across orientations and sex. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 150-167.
Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication Walter, K; Conroy-Beam, D; Buss, David M (2020). Psychological Science, 31(4).
Winegard, B. M., Winegard, B. M., & Deaner, R. O. (2014). Misrepresentations of evolutionary psychology in sex and gender textbooks. Evol Psychol, 12(3).
our subjects, sex had a considerably greater impact
on mating psychology than did sexual orientation.”
Thus, claims that EP provides little insight into the
study of gender and sexual minorities is not supported.
As we have seen, many critics of EP claim that
it promotes strict binary constructions of gender and
sexuality. While it is a fact that biological sex, as
defined by sex cells (gametes) is a binary variable in
reproductive biology, EP does not impose such
categories on to individuals with regards to sex,
sexuality or gender. EP is a descriptive natural
science, not a prescriptive social science. It seeks to
discover and map human nature, not impose limits
on it.
Critics often fall foul of the naturalistic fallacy and
mistake evolutionary explanations, proximate and
ultimate (Tinbergen, 2005), for excuses. This is not
the case. Different levels of analyses can also be
complementary and inspire interdisciplinary
collaboration rather than conflict. Feminist analysis
often focuses on the proximate mechanisms of
conflict between the sexes and ignores cooperation,
as well as neglecting the fact that competition within
a sex (or today, a gender) is far more prevalent than
the former. A better understanding of human cultural
and social phenomena can progress beyond
ideological disputes with a combined approach.
The failure of traditional “reply-rejoinder” exchanges
between Darwinians and their critics has led to the
suggestion of a solution in the form of “adversarial
collaboration” (Nier, Nier, Campbell, & Campbell,
Venn diagram adapted from Buss, et al, 1990.
International Preferences in Selecting Mates: A Study of
37 Cultures
conducted a large survey on the subject of human
sex differences in cognition, motivation, personality,
mating psychology, and sexuality The large sample
size of 119,733 men and 98,462 women allowed for
comparisons across cultures, sexes, genders and
sexualities. Lippa applied many of the same sorts of
cross-cultural analyses as those used by Buss, et al
in 1990/2020. Across ALL participants, the traits
ranked most important were: intelligence, humour,
honesty, kindness, overall good looks, face
attractiveness, values, communication skills, and
dependability.
Same-sex, heterosexual and homosexual
participants differed in their rankings of some traits
but sex differences were stronger than sexual
orientation and gender differences: Homosexual and
heterosexual individuals showed similar mate
preferences.
Lippa’s results addressed both ultimate and
proximate processes, noting “If same-sex [dyads]
show similar mate preferences, then gender roles
and marital roles may not be the cause of these
similarities...if gay men prefer the same traits in male
partners as heterosexual men prefer in female
partners (e.g., physical attractiveness), it becomes
less plausible to attribute such preferences solely to
sexist ideologies, attitudes [and social] roles.
Subsequent research has found that “Lesbian, gay
and heterosexual couples are more similar than they
are different” (Willis, 2014).
In a another study, (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue,
1994), found, “One general conclusion is that among
2013). This approach embraces healthy competition with
strict rules of engagement. Unfortunately, EP itself
predicts that a majority of women would not enjoy this
form of adversarial interaction, and would prefer instead
to follow more covert strategies of competition
(Benenson, 2013) –on average. But there are some
women who do thrive in such strictly logical
environments, just as there are many men who do not.
The fiercely logical Darwinian philosopher Janet Radcliffe
Richards is one of them. She states plainly that much
hostility towards Darwinism stems from skyhook habits of
mind, taking for granted that to describe any deep
Darwinian nature is to prescribe the way we ought to live.
Many materialists and rationalists accept evolution, she
asserts, but carry safety skyhooks which are fearfully
deployed when a fundamental value could be
undermined by a fact. E.g., if sex differences are real this
leads inexorably to a Handmaids tale dystopian future -
Skyhook deployed! Sex differences are not real! If
intelligence is partly inherited this leads inexorably to a
low-IQ underclass - Skyhook deployed! IQ research is
morally wrong! No, Richards states, “Practical values are
not derived from the facts alone but from facts in
conjunction with fundamental values”
Thus, claims that EP constrains and limits understanding
of human of sex, sexuality and gender roles are not
supported.
At a time when it is fashionable to use “sex” and “gender”
as proxies for one another, these studies reveal that
biological sex is a crucial variable in regards to evolved
psychosexual mating psychology and offers considerable
insight into both gender and sexuality.
EP is progressive in that it advances scientific knowledge,
but is not progressive in the contemporary, popular
ideological sense.
