Evolutionary Psychology

Just finished Evolutionary Psychology (2004), a textbook on a new approach to psychology that has been on my "Now Reading" list (now banished far down the left sidebar) for about a year. Evolutionary psychology might revolutionize the field. It is a new subdiscipline that attempts to understand human psychology in all its varieties in an evolutionary context, considering the many facets of human thought and behavior in light of their adaptive contribution to human survival (i.e., reproduction). For those with some knowledge of and sympathy for evolution, the book makes psychology understandable, even reasonable. I don't have time to write a lot, but I'll throw out a couple of teasers, then end up with this interesting question: Is there a Mormon view of psychology?

Perception, for example, is modeled in evolutionary psychology as a set of information processing subroutines that key on certain environmental inputs that are particularly important for early man, such as facial recognition and cheater detection. For example, people who can't remember a phone number to save their life can recognize a face they saw ten years ago because (following this approach) distinguishing strangers from familiar faces was a critical skill to our pre-Adamic ancestors, whereas memorizing strings of numbers was not.

Consciousness, a focus of inquiry for philosophy as well as psychology, is speculated to have emerged as tree-swingers such as orangutans and chimpanzees had to deal with the practical problem of deciding whether the next branch in their swinging path would hold their weight or not, obviously a life or death determination in some cases and one that can't be done without a sense of one's self. This isn't idle speculation: mirror tests show that chimps, for example, recognize themselves in the mirror and use that new view to inspect places they ordinarily can't see, whereas gorillas (who don't tree swing) just don't get it. So (following this approach) humans have consciousness because our un-self-aware evolutionary ancestors who didn't have enough self-consciousness for the job fell to early deaths and didn't reproduce.

For a final example, consider anxiety disorders. Emotions (following this approach) are the affective components of motivation; they are mental shortcuts that make us want to do (or not do) actions that contribute (or endanger) survival or fitness. Anxiety, or discomfort/fear of certain situations, is adaptive. Fear of heights and fear of spiders, for example, are adaptive because one can be injured or die from a fall or a poisonous spider. Anxiety is a more generalized discomfort/fear. Evolutionary psychology offers two explanations for modern anxiety disorders. First, the modern environment is oversaturated with stressors and threats compared to the pleasant African savannah where we honed our mental toolkit. Second, anxiety may be a polygenic trait that will contribute to a distribution or range of realized anxiety sensitivity across a given population. One who happens to be overendowed with contributing anxiety genes is more likely to become overly sensitive and display anxiety disorders.

It strikes me that the evolutionary biology approach fits nicely with the philosophical view known as Pragmatism. William James argued, for example, that the question Does God exist? makes little sense, but the question Should I believe in God? made a lot of sense because it has practical consequences, often termed the "cash value" of a fact or belief. Not that pragmatists are indifferent to truth, but the bias is against metaphysical questions and in favor of those that have practical consequences.

So how do Mormons respond to evolutionary psychology or to any other theory of the human psyche and the wellsprings of human behavior? The Church has always taken a dim view of mental illness, but in the last couple of generations has at least come around to counseling bishops that not all problems are treatable by moral exhortation and prayer. Another positive sign: Despite the scriptural examples of demonic possession and evil spirits that plague mankind, I've never heard of a bishop diagnosing demon possession as the cause of an individual's problems (despite the generalized dangers of being overcome by "the spirit of apostasy" one often hears in talks). And there is a branch of LDS Social Services designed to handle inquiries from bishops and take referrals for treatment. This is all rather encouraging. But I don't know whether there is an LDS model of human psychology that such LDS practitioners are given by senior LDS leaders, apart from the general guideline that if a person has problems it is never the Church's fault. Hence my initial query: Is there an accepted or acceptable Mormon model of psychology?

Comments

[Eric Russell]

Dave asks, “Is there an accepted or acceptable Mormon model of psychology?” Acceptable to whom? To you, to the church, or to the church general membership?

I think there certainly is a Mormon model of psychology, but I wouldn’t say anything of it here. Expressed in the brevity of a single comment, it would be highly polemic. I would instead direct those interested in the subject here, an article which isn’t an all-encompassing treatise on the matter, but I think provides us with the prefect place to start thinking about it.

[RoastedTomatoes]

I've read recently that evolution scientists now argue that evolution happens much more quickly than evolution psychologists believe. So that our minds should have changed quite a lot since hunter-gatherer days. For what it's worth...

By the way, there is a brand of Mormon who believes there's a Mormon model of psychology. That model features extreme free will. Nothing's determined by anything but choice. So mental illness is a bad choice...

[Clark]

Out of curiosity, have you been reading Mixing Memory and his frequent criticisms of EP?

[Jared]

I don't have a good handle on evolutionary psychology. I do know that it is controversial--even committed atheist scientists have problems with EP. If I understand correctly, I think their beef is that the ideas behind EP can be hard to actually test.

[sarebear]

There is a book by Elder Morrison, called Valley of Sorrow.

Also, another link on the site that Eric references that I've found very helpful is Dr. Rick Hawks' BYU Education Week 2005 Talks, including Mental Illness: How Latter-Day-Saints Shoot Their Wounded.

[Clark Goble]

You should read through Mixing Memory. He loves to attack EPs like Pinker (all of whose books I've read). The criticisms are actually pretty good. It goes well beyond the lack of empirical evidence. (And in many ways EP reminds me of ID now that I've read more into it.) Anyway, I think Mixing Memory is by far my favorite blog just because his posts are always so informative. Further when you ask questions he is amazingly helpful - especially in reading. The reading club we're having has been tremendously informative as well, even though most of us disagree with the thesis of the author.

[Eric Russell]

RT,

There is also a line of pop psychology that says that any emotional issue is a mental disorder.

I think this is part of the problem with the talk that sarebear links to above. I agree, technically, with the points he makes, but he places them all together to draw a false conclusion that we are not at all responsible for our own emotions. This, I believe, is a more dangerous idea than the one he’s confronting.

Clearly, Mormons, just as non-Mormons, have different opinions on the matter.

[sarebear]

I believe he is speaking of the mentally ill, especially the more serious brain disorders. Such as my bipolar (while I am not completely responsible for my emotions, and for how I act on them at times, I accept and take FULL responsibility for my actions, as soon as I return to a mental and emotional state where I am capable of doing so). Some might not see the distinction between accepting that the disease affects or even causes certain actions, and my being able to take responsibility for it, but I do. I repent for everything I do wrong, with no consideration of oh he should go lighter on me because I'm ill, or I wasn't in charge of myself.

In reality though, these illnesses cause PHYSICAL changes in the brain, and the brain affects and causes our emotions and behavior. It is frustrating to be at the mercy of the illnesses, but I am doing what I can.

The author of those talks is a psychologist, and many of the quotes he uses are from general authorities. The mentally ill do not have complete control over their emotions; that is a fundamental fact of their condition.

He is speaking about the ill, not the general population. But I did not see what he said as absolving me of responsibility for my emotions either, although of course there is a degree to which mine are affected and caused by my conditions.

In the end, I repent of sin like everyone else, and try to conduct myself as best I can within the values and principles I hold important, although the illnesses make that difficult to impossible sometimes. I try anyway, and strive for that standard. And beat myself up emotionally too much for not meeting it lol.

[Dave]

sarebear, I don't know who Dr. Rick is, but I liked his slide presentation that you linked to. Sounds like the kind of informed common sense on this issue that is well-suited to an LDS audience. Thanks for the link.

[RoastedTomatoes]

Eric, I think it can be worthwhile to remember that the autonomy implied by the concept of free agency is an ideal and isn't really met during mortality. For Paul's expression of this idea, see Romans 7:14-25. While we're mortal, we're going to have options foreclosed on us due to physical constraints. We're going to make some decisions that we don't want to make, and we'll find ourselves unable to make other decisions that we wish we could make. The question of exactly which decisions are the result of mortal constraints and which are the result of free choice is obviously both important and open. But the scriptures and modern science speak as one voice in clarifying that at least sometimes we are strongly constrained by our bodies.

[Clark Goble]

Eric, that notion of "pop psychology" is actually quite old. It goes back at least to the Stoics, who in certain ways started psychology.

[Eric Russell]

We may be limited in the control we have over our bodies, but we always have control over our hearts. We can always choose to be humble, to have a broken heart and contrite spirit, to forgive and love another, to let go of any grudges or resentment towards others, to let go of any anger towards others, to let go of hurt feelings of any kind. And it’s here that agency is important, because it’s what we choose to do with our hearts that dictates our inner peace.

[Mark]

Not that pragmatists are indifferent to truth, but the bias is against metaphysical questions and in favor of those that have practical consequences.

Dave, this is something that has struck me about Mormonism - we tend to be pragmatic folk. As much as we quote Joseph Smith's statement about correct preiciples, we usually don't start with first principles and argue from there. We are pretty comfortable with the idea that what works is probably what's best.

[Clark Goble]

Actually the pragmatist position is, unlike the positivists, that metaphysical considerations do have practical consequences.

[RoastedTomatoes]

By the way, on a brief return to the original topic of evolutionary psychology, there's some recent discussion in the news of evidence that our brains have evolved substantially during the period associated with "modern humanity." See, for instance, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050909/ap_on_sc/brain_evolution

That our brains have changed in important ways over the last few thousand years might seem like a strange detail. But it speaks directly to evolutionary psychology by suggesting that our brains might in some ways be better suited for a modern environment than for the African sahara.