DOCSLIB.ORG

A Constructive Critical Assessment of Feminist Evolutionary Psychology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Constructive Critical Assessment of Feminist Evolutionary Psychology A Constructive Critical Assessment of Feminist Evolutionary Psychology by Sara Weaver A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2017 © Sara Weaver 2017 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Letitia Meynell Associate Professor Supervisor(s) Carla Fehr Associate Professor Internal Member Paul Thagard Professor Internal-external Member Alexis Dolphin Assistant Professor Other Member(s) Kathryn Plaisance Associate Professor ii Author’s Declaration: I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract In this dissertation, I develop an approach to philosophical critique of morally relevant science and apply this approach to a new branch of evolutionary psychology called “feminist evolutionary psychology.” Morally relevant science is science that produces knowledge that has the potential to risk harm to humans, non-humans, or the environment. For example, a science that produces claims about women that reinforce prejudicial beliefs about women is a morally relevant science. The approach I develop, what I call the “social-dimensional approach,” is designed to assess a science’s epistemic and ethical dimensions which makes it ideal for the assessment of morally relevant science. My development of the social-dimensional approach is informed by an analysis of the philosophy of biology literature on the criticism of evolutionary psychology (EP), the study of the evolution of human psychology and behaviour. I apply the social-dimensional approach to feminist evolutionary psychology and show that this new science has serious epistemic and ethical flaws. I address the implications of these flaws and offer recommendations for how feminist evolutionary psychologists can amend them. I argue the social-dimensional approach has use beyond evolutionary psychology and can be used for the assessment of morally relevant science more broadly. iv Acknowledgements: What a journey this thesis has been. I am ever so grateful to my supervisor, Carla Fehr, for her ceaseless support and guidance. Many of the strengths of this thesis are directly attributable to the advice and feedback she gave me. I would also like to thank my committee members, Letitia Meynell, Paul Thagard, Kathryn Plaisance, and Alexis Dolphin, for their useful and thought-provoking comments. I look forward to integrating their advice and ideas into future work of mine. I will also thank Debbie Dietrich, Ashley Keefner, and Eric Hochstein for their assistance answering my many technical questions about writing and finishing a dissertation. Finally, thank you to my very wonderful friends and family for your encouragement and emotional support. This thesis is finished and I am still standing in large part because of you. v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: The Literature Under Investigation, Feminist Evolutionary Psychology .................................... 8 2.1. Integrating Feminism with Evolutionary Psychology: A Brief History ............................................ 8 2.2 Research Sample for My Assessment of FEP ................................................................................... 12 2.3 FEP’s Feminist Disciplinary Aims ................................................................................................... 13 2.4 FEP Theoretical Foundations ............................................................................................................ 17 2.4.1 Theories FEP Shares with EP .................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2 FEP Alternative Theories about the Evolutionary Study of Sex ................................................ 27 2.4.3 Theories about Females as Active Evolutionary Agents ........................................................... 29 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Chapter 3 Methodology: The Social-Dimensional Approach ..................................................................... 35 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 The Truth-Dectectional Approach .................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1 Substandard Evolutionary Research: Problems with Theory, Methods, and Data Analyses in EP ............................................................................................................................................................ 38 3.2.2 Problems with Epistemic Values ............................................................................................... 41 3.2.3 Pernicious Social Implications ................................................................................................... 42 3.3 The Social-Dimensional Approach ................................................................................................... 44 3.3.1 Social Values ............................................................................................................................. 44 3.3.2 Dissemination ............................................................................................................................ 50 3.3.3 Social Implications ..................................................................................................................... 51 3.4 The Truth-Detectional Approach and Harm ..................................................................................... 53 3.4.1 Social Harm ............................................................................................................................... 54 3.4.2 Harm to the Philosophy of Science ............................................................................................ 58 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 61 Chapter 4 Critical Analysis of FEP Theory ............................................................................................... 64 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 64 4.2 Problems with the BTP-paradigm ..................................................................................................... 65 4.3 Problematic use of the BTP-paradigm in FEP .................................................................................. 70 4.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 85 Chapter 5 Critical Analysis of FEP Data ................................................................................................... 92 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 92 vi 5.2 The Wrong Data ................................................................................................................................ 93 5.2.1 Problems Operationalizing Evolutionary Phenomena ............................................................... 93 5.2.2 Just-So Stories .......................................................................................................................... 101 5.3 Not enough of the right Data........................................................................................................... 104 5.3.1 Data from too few Sources ....................................................................................................... 104 5.3.2 Sample Unrepresentativeness .................................................................................................. 108 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 112 Chapter 6 Critical Analysis of FEP Values ............................................................................................... 115 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 115 6.2 Part 1: Authority ............................................................................................................................. 116 6.2.1 The Amalgamationist Argument .............................................................................................. 118 6.2.2 Misappropriated Feminist Expertise ........................................................................................ 121 6.2.3 Exaggeration of EP’s Scope and Usefulness ..........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences Volume 9
    Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences Volume 9 Editors: Charles T. Wolfe, Ghent University, Belgium Philippe Huneman, IHPST (CNRS/Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne), France Thomas A.C. Reydon, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany Editorial Board: Editors Charles T. Wolfe, Ghent University, Belgium Philippe Huneman, IHPST (CNRS/Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne), France Thomas A.C. Reydon, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany Editorial Board Marshall Abrams (University of Alabama at Birmingham) Andre Ariew (Missouri) Minus van Baalen (UPMC, Paris) Domenico Bertoloni Meli (Indiana) Richard Burian (Virginia Tech) Pietro Corsi (EHESS, Paris) François Duchesneau (Université de Montréal) John Dupré (Exeter) Paul Farber (Oregon State) Lisa Gannett (Saint Mary’s University, Halifax) Andy Gardner (Oxford) Paul Griffi ths (Sydney) Jean Gayon (IHPST, Paris) Guido Giglioni (Warburg Institute, London) Thomas Heams (INRA, AgroParisTech, Paris) James Lennox (Pittsburgh) Annick Lesne (CNRS, UPMC, Paris) Tim Lewens (Cambridge) Edouard Machery (Pittsburgh) Alexandre Métraux (Archives Poincaré, Nancy) Hans Metz (Leiden) Roberta Millstein (Davis) Staffan Müller-Wille (Exeter) Dominic Murphy (Sydney) François Munoz (Université Montpellier 2) Stuart Newman (New York Medical College) Frederik Nijhout (Duke) Samir Okasha (Bristol) Susan Oyama (CUNY) Kevin Padian (Berkeley) David Queller (Washington University, St Louis) Stéphane Schmitt (SPHERE, CNRS, Paris) Phillip Sloan (Notre Dame) Jacqueline Sullivan
    [Show full text]
  • Biology Has Been Taught at Bristol – As Botany and Zoology – Since Before the University Was Founded in 1909
    Biology has been taught at Bristol – as Botany and Zoology – since before the University was founded in 1909. Bristol has made significant contributions to many fields, from animal cognition and medicinal plants to entomology, evolutionary Game Theory and bird flight – and the BBC Natural History Unit's proximity to the University has led to television careers for a number of graduates! In 1876, University College, the precursor to the University, appointed Dr. Frederick Adolph Leipner as Lecturer in Botany, Zoology and, amusingly, German. Leipner had trained at the Bristol Medical School, but taught botany and natural philosophy, later combining this with teaching in Vegetable Physiology at the Medical School. He became Professor of Botany in 1884 and was a founding member of the Bristol Naturalists' Society, becoming its President in 1893. Bristol today is proud of its interdisciplinary strengths and, among others, offers Joint Honours Degrees in Geology and Biology, and in Psychology and Zoology. A portent of these modern links is seen in one of the University's most notable early appointments, Conwy Lloyd Morgan, appointed as Professor of Zoology and Geology in 1884 and then – somehow fitting in service as Vice- Chancellor – becoming the first Chair in Psychology (and Ethics). Lloyd Morgan is most famous as a pioneer of the study of comparative animal cognition. He was a highly influential figure for the North American Behaviourist movement: “Lloyd Morgan's cannon” is a comparative psychologist's version of Occam's Razor whereby no behaviour should be ascribed to more complex cognitive mechanisms than strictly necessary. He was the first Fellow of the Royal Society to be elected for psychological work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Sexual Selection and Sexual Conflict
    Downloaded from http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/ on September 24, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press The Relationship between Sexual Selection and Sexual Conflict Hanna Kokko and Michael D. Jennions Center of Excellence in Biological Interactions, Ecology, Evolution & Genetics, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected] Evolutionary conflicts of interest arise whenever genetically different individuals interact and their routes to fitness maximization differ. Sexual selection favors traits that increase an individual’s competitiveness to acquire mates and fertilizations. Sexual conflict occurs if an individual of sex A’s relative fitness would increase if it had a “tool” that could alter what an individual of sex B does (including the parental genes transferred), at a cost to B’s fitness. This definition clarifies several issues: Conflict is very common and, although it extends outside traits under sexual selection, sexual selection is a ready source of sexual conflict. Sexual conflict and sexual selection should not be presented as alternative expla- nations for trait evolution. Conflict is closely linked to the concept of a lag load, which is context-dependent and sex-specific. This makes it possible to ask if one sex can “win.” We expect higher population fitness if females win. any published studies ask if sexual selec- one or the other shapes the natural world, when Mtion or sexual conflict drives the evolution obviously both interact to determine the out- of key reproductive traits (e.g., mate choice). come. Here we argue that this is an inappropriate So why have sexual conflict and sexual selec- question.
    [Show full text]
  • John Maynard Smith Archive (1948-2004) (Add MS 86569-86840) Table of Contents
    British Library: Western Manuscripts John Maynard Smith Archive (1948-2004) (Add MS 86569-86840) Table of Contents John Maynard Smith Archive (1948–2004) Key Details........................................................................................................................................ 1 Arrangement..................................................................................................................................... 2 Provenance........................................................................................................................................ 2 Add MS 86569–86574 Reprints and copies of articles and book chapters by John Maynard Smith (1952–2003)...................................................................................................................................... 3 Add MS 86575–86596 Correspondence files, F–Z (1975–1991).............................................................. 5 Add MS 86597–86830 Subject files (1948–2003).................................................................................. 18 Add MS 86831–86835 Notebooks and plant lists (1973–2003)............................................................... 223 Add MS 86836–86837 Lecture notes ([c 1990–c 1999])........................................................................ 226 Add MS 86838–86839 Artefacts and books (1983–2001)....................................................................... 227 Add MS 86840 Annotations and manuscripts with offprints received by John Maynard Smith (1952?–2003)...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Winners of the ZSL Frink Award
    Winners of the ZSL Frink Award 2019 Professor Christl Donnelly FRS, Imperial College London, for outstanding contributions to our understanding of epidemiology and infectious disease 2018 Professor John McNamara FRS, University of Bristol, for outstanding contributions to mathematical and theoretical approaches to the study of behavioural ecology and evolutionary biology 2017 Professor Pat Monaghan, University of Glasgow, for outstanding contributions to evolutionary ecology and the study of animal behaviour 2016 Professor Sarah Cleaveland FRS, University of Glasgow, for outstanding contributions to the understanding of wildlife disease, and the dynamics, impacts and implications of infections in natural ecosystems 2015 Professor Peter W. H. Holland FRS, for outstanding contributions to our understanding of the evolution of animal diversity 2014 Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, for outstanding contributions to ethology 2013 Professor Michael Akam FRS, for outstanding contributions to evolutionary developmental biology 2012 Professor Georgina Mace FRS, for outstanding contributions to conservation biology 2011 Professor Paul Harvey CBE FRS, for outstanding contributions to evolutionary biology and ecology 2010 Professor Ziheng Yang FRS, for outstanding contributions to our knowledge of molecular evolution 2009 Professor Charles Godfray FRS, for outstanding contributions to our knowledge of population and community ecology, and evolutionary biology 2008 Professor Chris Stringer FRS, for outstanding contributions to our knowledge of human
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-88710-6 - Animal Contests Edited by Ian C.W. Hardy and Mark Briffa Frontmatter More information Animal Contests Contests are an important aspect of the lives of diverse animals, from sea anemones competing for space on a rocky shore to male ibex contending for access to females. Why do animals fight? What determines when fights stop and which contestant wins? Addressing fundamental questions on contest behaviour, this volume presents theoretical and empirical perspectives across a range of species. The historical development of contest research, the evolutionary theory of both dyadic and multiparty contests and approaches to experimental design and data analysis are discussed in the first few chapters. These topics are followed by reviews of research in key animal taxa, from the use of aerial displays and assessment rules in butterflies and the developmental biology of weapons in beetles, through to interstate warfare in humans. The final chapter considers future directions and applications of contest research, making this a comprehensive resource for both graduate students and researchers in the field. Ian C.W. Hardy is an Associate Professor and Reader in the School of Biosciences at the University of Nottingham, UK. Mark Briffa is an Associate Professor (Reader) in the School of Marine Science and Engineering at Plymouth University, UK. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-88710-6 - Animal Contests Edited by Ian C.W. Hardy and Mark Briffa Frontmatter More information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-88710-6 - Animal Contests Edited by Ian C.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Gamete Competition, the Evolution of Anisogamy, and Model Robustness
    cells Article The Legacy of Parker, Baker and Smith 1972: Gamete Competition, the Evolution of Anisogamy, and Model Robustness Jussi Lehtonen Faculty of Science, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; jussi.lehtonen@iki.fi Abstract: The evolution of anisogamy or gamete size dimorphism is a fundamental transition in evolutionary history, and it is the origin of the female and male sexes. Although mathematical models attempting to explain this transition have been published as early as 1932, the 1972 model of Parker, Baker, and Smith is considered to be the first explanation for the evolution of anisogamy that is consistent with modern evolutionary theory. The central idea of the model is ingenious in its simplicity: selection simultaneously favours large gametes for zygote provisioning, and small gametes for numerical competition, and under certain conditions the outcome is anisogamy. In this article, I derive novel analytical solutions to a 2002 game theoretical update of the 1972 anisogamy model, and use these solutions to examine its robustness to variation in its central assumptions. Combining new results with those from earlier papers, I find that the model is quite robust to variation in its central components. This kind of robustness is crucially important in a model for an early evolutionary transition where we may only have an approximate understanding of constraints Citation: Lehtonen, J. The Legacy of Parker, Baker and Smith 1972: that the different parts of the model must obey. Gamete Competition, the Evolution of Anisogamy, and Model Robustness. Keywords: isogamy; anisogamy; sexes; female; male; gamete; egg; sperm; reproduction; game theory Cells 2021, 10, 573.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Models of Fertilization—An Eco-Evolutionary Perspective
    Volume 94, No. 2 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY June 2019 MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF FERTILIZATION—AN ECO-EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE Jussi Lehtonen School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales 2006 Australia Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales 2052 Australia e-mail: jussi.lehtonen@iki.fi Louis Dardare Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales 2052 Australia e-mail: [email protected] keywords fertilization functions, egg, sperm, gamete, fertilization models, sperm limitation abstract Mathematical models of fertilization have been developed for many taxa, for both external and inter- nal fertilizers. They estimate the proportion or number of fertilized gametes based on gamete concentrations and parameters relating to the biology of the model organism, as well as serve multiple purposes: a pre- dictive purpose, with applications in, for example, artificial insemination; they clarify causal components of fertilization success such as concentration, size, collision rates and swimming speed of gametes, and polyspermy block times; and they function as components of models in evolutionary ecology, which often require understanding of fitness consequences of resource allocation between gametes and other traits. We pay particular attention to this last category, which has received less attention than other uses. Many evolutionary models assume the simplest relationship between fertilization success and gamete numbers: all eggs are fertilized. In nature, however, it is not uncommon for eggs to be sperm limited, and fertiliza- tion success must decrease as sperm density approaches zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Conflict in Nature
    1 Sexual Conflict in Nature During the mating season, male robber flies roam through the vegetation in search of females. When approached by a male, a female takes to the wing, and the male pursues. If overtaken and grappled by a male, females of most species struggle violently, often successfully, to free themselves. In a few spe- cies, however, females may use another strategy to achieve the same result; if grasped by a male, they play dead! Once a female stops moving, a male appar- ently no longer recognizes her as a potential partner, loses interest, and releases the female, who falls to the ground and flies off. Over the course of the egg-laying period, a male penduline tit (a song bird) makes repeated forays to his partner’s nest in an apparent attempt to assess how many eggs she has laid thus far. Female partners, however, seem to make sure that this inspection job is not an easy one for males. Females bury their eggs in the bottom of the nest, perhaps to hide them, and become aggressive toward their mates. Observations in aviaries have shown that these inquisitive males are sometimes injured or even killed by their secretive mates. As in most spiders where courting males are at risk of being cannibalized by females, a male of the funnel-web spider Agelenopsis aperta approaches a female slowly and very carefully. Once close, he sprays an apparent “toxin” at the female, which makes her (and occasionally him) collapse and enter an “unconscious” state. The male then hauls the cataleptic female about the web, repositions her, and finally inseminates her while she is still “knocked out.” At the time of mating, a male Malabar ricefish will dart toward a nearby female with near-lightning speed.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Recipients of the Zoological Society of London
    Winners of the ZSL Frink Medal for British Zoologists 2017 Professor Pat Monaghan, University of Glasgow, for outstanding contributions to evolutionary ecology and the study of animal behaviour 2016 Professor Sarah Cleaveland FRS, University of Glasgow, for outstanding contributions to the understanding of wildlife disease, and the dynamics, impacts and implications of infections in natural ecosystems 2015 Professor Peter W. H. Holland FRS for outstanding contributions to our understanding of the evolution of animal diversity 2014 Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS for outstanding contributions to ethology 2013 Professor Michael Akam FRS for outstanding contributions to evolutionary developmental biology 2012 Professor Georgina Mace FRS for outstanding contributions to conservation biology 2011 Professor Paul Harvey CBE FRS for outstanding contributions to evolutionary biology and ecology 2010 Professor Ziheng Yang FRS For outstanding contributions to our knowledge of molecular evolution 2009 Professor Charles Godfray FRS for outstanding contributions to our knowledge of population and community ecology, and evolutionary biology 2008 Professor Chris Stringer FRS for outstanding contributions to our knowledge of human origins 2007 Professor Tom Cavalier-Smith FRS for contributions to our knowledge of cell and genome evolution, large-scale phylogeny and evolutionary transitions 2006 Professor Brian Charlesworth FRS for his outstanding research in evolutionary genetics 2005 Professor Geoff Parker FRS in recognition of his research into evolutionary processes 2004 Professor Malcolm Burrows FRS in recognition of his research on the neuronal basis of behaviour. 2003 Professor Quentin Bone FRS in recognition of his outstanding contribution to zoology. 2002 Professor Michael P. Hassell FRS in recognition of his contribution to population ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Ecology
    Who’s who Lars Chittka University of London, Behavioral ecology Queen Mary College http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/research/staff /chittka/chittka.htm Studies bees – mostly Bombus terrestris , a Approaches to studying bumble bee Interesting results : found social learning in bees; found that behavior flower colors evolved to match bee vision, not vice versa; found that there is variation in learning and color preference traits within and across populations References : Advances in the Study of Behavior 36: 305-354 Current Biology 15: R869-R871 Some more admin Your presentations Think about the audience! • Talk dates / topics • Lecture is 1 hour 15 min: plan talk for • Who’s who: dates and whos 35 min (let me know as soon as you know who you want to • Pick a topic that you are interested in talk about – first come first serve, and no doubles!) • Give general background as well as example studies • Make slides • Have discussion questions at the end Your presentations Your presentations Think about the audience! Think about the audience! • Use large font or noone will know what you are talking about • Use large font or noone will know what you are talking about 32 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 10 32 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 10 • Keep it brief on the slide – and no distractions! 1 Your presentations Suggestions for whos • Stephen J Gould • John Krebs Think about the audience! • William (Bill) Hamilton • Peter Berthold • Edward O Wilson • Mark Hauser • Use large font or noone will know what you are talking about • Charles Darwin • Tim Clutton-Brock 32 28
    [Show full text]
  • How Soon Hath Time . . . a History of Two “Seminal” Publications
    cells Opinion How Soon Hath Time . A History of Two “Seminal” Publications Geoff A. Parker Department of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, University of Liverpool, Biosciences Building, Crown Street, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK; [email protected] Abstract: This review documents the history of the two papers written half a century ago that relate to this special issue of Cells. The first, “Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects” (Biological Reviews, 1970), stressed that sexual selection continues after ejaculation, resulting in many adaptations (e.g., postcopulatory guarding phases, copulatory plugs, seminal fluid components that modify female reproduction, and optimal ejaculation strategies), an aspect not considered by Darwin in his classic treatise of 1871. Sperm competition has subsequently been studied in many taxa, and post-copulatory sexual selection is now considered an important sequel to Darwinian pre-copulatory sexual selection. The second, “The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1972) showed how selection, based on gamete competition between individuals, can give rise to anisogamy in an isogamous broadcast spawning ancestor. This theory, which has subsequently been developed in various ways, is argued to form the most powerful explanation of why there are two sexes in most multicellular organisms. Together, the two papers have influenced our general understanding of the evolutionary differentiation of the two forms of gametic cells, and the divergence of sexual strategies between males and females under sexual selection. Keywords: sperm competition; post-copulatory sexual selection; origin of sexes Citation: Parker, G.A. How Soon Hath Time . A History of Two “Seminal” Publications.
    [Show full text]