https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2018/11/Psychological-Barriers-to-Evolutionary-Psychlogy.pdf
The first question we consider is how do members of SESP view evolutionary psychology? To address this question, we included three key items in the survey. First, participants were asked to respond on a scale from 0% to 100% how likely it is that Darwin’s ideas of evolution are true and that plants, animals, and humans all evolved through similar causal processes across hundreds of millions of years. The mean response to this item was 87.6% (modal response was 100%), suggesting overwhelming endorsement of evolutionary theory as applied to life on Earth. Next, participants indicated how likely it is that most of Darwin’s ideas about evolution are true BUT that humans were an exception and were not a product of evolution. The mean response to this item was 6.9% (modal response 0%). These findings indicate that almost all members of SESP believe evolutionary theory applies to humans, and very few believe that humans are an exception to evolutionary principles.
The critical issue for this chapter is the degree to which this endorsement of evolutionary theory manifests in a belief in the evolution of the social mind. To examine this question, we asked participants to indicate how likely it is that Darwin’s ideas of evolution apply to the human mind and that many of our social attitudes and preferences evolved across millions of years. In contrast to the highly skewed responses to the prior two questions, responses to this item were almost equal across the entire scale range, and the mean response was 54.8% (with a mode of 50%).
There are at least two ways to interpret this 33% gap between the mean levels of endorsement of evolutionary biology and evolutionary social psychology (or the 50% gap between the modes).”
When asked whom they had voted for (or would have voted for) in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, 305 of our respondents chose Barack Obama (the candidate on the political left), and only 4 chose Mitt Romney (the candidate on the political right). The sample was also skewed with regard to opinions about issues such as abortion and gun control; the mean response was within two points of the liberal end of an 11-point scale and only five individuals (less than 2% of our sample) scored on the conservative side of the scale midpoint.
This misperception about genetics and psychological adaptations might account for part of the reason that members of SESP showed bimodal distributions in their perceptions of the likelihood that humans have a genetic tendency to be violent (M = 58%, modes at 20/30% and 60%) and that men evolved to have more difficulty than women being sexually faithful (M = 49%, modes at 10 and 50%). A substantial proportion of SESP members might be rejecting these possibilities on ideological grounds.
To examine SESP members’ opinions regarding the sources of these differences, we included two questions in our survey. In the first, we asked members to indicate how likely they thought it was that women’s brains had evolved in a manner that led women to be more verbally talented than men. In the second question, we asked members to indicate how likely they thought it was that men’s brains had evolved in a manner that led men to be more mathematically talented than women. The mean response to the first item was 40.3%, and the mean response to the second item was 30.2% (a significant difference).
SESP members thought this possibility was 51% likely, and consistent with many other items, that average was in the context of a bimodal distribution, with the two modes at 10% and 70/80%. [referring to universal standards of attractiveness]
In contrast, a simultaneous regression revealed independent variance in the residual tendency to endorse evolutionary social psychology was predicted by SESP members’ beliefs that well-known gender differences might have a genetic cause (β = 0.120, p = 0.033; bivariate r = 0.295, p < 0.001), that sex hormones might have an important influence on attitudes and behavior (β = 0.207, p < 0.001; bivariate r = 0.380, p < 0.001), that humans might have a genetic tendency to be violent (β = 0.126, p = 0.024; bivariate r = 0.308, p < 0.001), and that there might be universal standards of attractiveness (β = 0.208, p = 0.001; bivariate r = 0.398, p < 0.001). Thus, it seems that members of SESP who do not accept a role for genetics and hormones in sex differences, who do not accept the possibility that the dark side of human nature might have evolved, and who do not accept that there are universal standards of attractiveness that some people meet better than others are also unlikely to embrace evolutionary psychology, despite believing in evolutionary theory.
To test this possibility, we correlated SESP members’ averaged responses to these four items with their self-reported liberalism to conservatism and found a small positive relationship (r = 0.20, p < 0.001). This relationship seems to emerge from the fact that people across the political spectrum are equally likely to perceive these possibilities as highly probable, but only people on the far left are likely to believe that there is virtually no chance that these possibilities are true (see Figure 2.1).
The above article preceded and previewed the authors' peer reviewed paper.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-57934-001.html
In this paper, we argue that four interlocking barriers stand in the way of research scientists who seek to understand human social psychology. The first barrier is the political ideology of most social psychologists, which is typically on the left (or liberal) side of the spectrum. The second barrier is a view of human nature common among people on the political left, which is that we are born without any predilections to behave in a particular manner. According to this view, our mind is a blank slate at birth and is corrupted solely by the ills of bad environments or societies. The third barrier is a tendency to reject theories and findings that might contravene the “blank slate” view of human nature, particularly theories and findings that arise from evolutionary approaches to human behavior. The fourth barrier is a collection of evolved tendencies that prevent investigators from being dispassionate seekers of scientific truth. These include our evolved tendency to be more focused on persuasion than truth-seeking, to be concerned with the maintenance of our prestige as scientists, and to form and maintain coalitions that compete with each other. We provide initial evidence for some of these possibilities with data gathered from a survey of 335 established social psychologists. We conclude with the irony that our evolved psychology may interfere with the scientific understanding of our evolved psychology.
Amazing how many people who claim to accept evolution actually don't.
Religionists often insist that "microevolution" is real but "macroevolution" is impossible, but can't explain what prevents "microevolution" from accumulating into "macroevolution" over very long periods of time.
Similarly, postmodernists often claim to believe in evolution but can't explain what prevented the human brain and mind from evolving just as the rest of the human body – and other animal brains and behaviors – did.
Blank Slate is a religous creationist cult of evolution denialism.
