The evolutionary psychology debate

A. Ayton

West End Child & Family Service, 2062-68 Hessle Road, Hessle HU13 9NW, North Humberside, UK

EDITED BY MATTHEW HOTOPF

I am very much honoured that a prominent scientific writer like Rose (2001) treats me with the same method as he and his circle have treated E. O. Wilson in their recent collection of essays (Rose & Rose, 2000). Being a mere practising psychiatrist, it puzzles me why it has become acceptable for the anti-sociobiology/evolutionary psychology movement to misquote their opposition, in either a patronising or an openly hostile way, attributing hidden agendas to those who dare to think about human behaviour and psychological functioning in an evolutionary context. Clearly, they feel that the end justifies the means, and that their version of the truth has to be defended at any cost.

Segerstrle (2000), in a detailed analysis of the sociobiology debate, compared the two camps of scientists to gardeners: one side representing the planters, and the other the weeders. It seems to me that both tasks are important in the development of the perfect garden of science. Rose appears to be an overzealous weeder, who is afraid that the dangerous weed of evolutionary psychology will destroy his garden and tries to kill it at every opportunity. The effort is unlikely to succeed. However, I need to point out that in my previous letters concerning the evolutionary psychology debate (Ayton, 2000, 2001) there was nothing to imply ‘some sort of conspiracy in psychiatry to ignore biology’ (Rose, 2001). About 30-40% of all psychiatric references on the Medline database are biological studies, so there is no lack of biological studies and theories. However, what is lacking is a coherent theoretical framework; and evolutionary theory is largely ignored by psychiatric training or academia. It is untenable to state that only proximal causation is relevant to mental states or human behaviour. This was recognised by Darwin and beautifully demonstrated by Bowlby. Despite initial strong criticism, Bowlby's contribution to the understanding of the mother—infant relationship has become fundamental, and has wiped out earlier explanations.

If ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (Rose, 2001), then surely, human beings and their behaviour cannot be excluded on scientific grounds.

REFERENCES

Ayton, A. (2000) Implications of evolutionary theory for psychiatry (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 370.[Free Full Text]

Ayton, A. (2001) A defence of evolutionary psychology (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 267-268.[Free Full Text]

Rose, H. & Rose, S. (eds) (2000) Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. London: Jonathan Cape.

Rose, S. (2001) Revisiting evolutionary psychology and psychiatry (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 558.[Free Full Text]

Segerstrle, U. (2000) Defenders of the Truth. The Sociobiology Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Submit a response
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when eLetters are posted
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Ayton, A.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Ayton, A.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals