How Deep Do We Have To Go To Rehabilitate Evolutionary Psychology? Reply to Bjorklund, Ellis, & Geary (2022)

Authors

David S. Moore, Pitzer College & Claremont Graduate UniversityFollow
David C. Witherington, University of New MexicoFollow
Darcia Narvaez, University of Notre DameFollow
Timothy I. Vandiver, University of New MexicoFollow
Robert Lickliter, Florida International UniversityFollow

Researcher ORCID Identifier

0000-0002-4230-5393

Document Type

Article - preprint

Program

Psychology (Pitzer)

Publication Date

2022

Keywords

Adaptationism, Functional adaptation, Plasticity, Development, Natural selection

Abstract

Disciplines like evolutionary-developmental psychology admirably focus on trying to rehabilitate Narrow Evolutionary Psychology (NEP) from within, by adding a developmental focus to NEP’s tenets of adaptationism and computationalism. We argue, however, that these tenets are fundamentally incompatible with taking psychology and its development seriously, and that the kinds of modifications introduced by evolutionary-developmental psychologists do not go deep enough to qualitatively change the non-developmental outlook of NEP.

Comments

©American Psychological Association, 2022. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available, upon publication, at: 10.1037/amp0001015.

Rights Information

© 2022 American Psychological Association

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont.

DOI

10.1037/amp0001015

Recommended Citation

Moore, D. S., Witherington, D. C., Narvaez, D., Vandiver, T. I., & Lickliter, R. (2022). How deep do we have to go to rehabilitate evolutionary psychology? Reply to Bjorklund, Ellis, & Geary (2022). American Psychologist, 77(6), 784–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001015