Evolutionary psychology is a highly controversial form of study in the social sciences; either you believe in it undeniably or it’s absolute nonsense. Though it has contributed to the psychology field plenty, it’s basis is very concerning and not altogether the most proven. A lot of evolutionary psychology is dependent on ideas that aren’t proven, but talked about as if they are fact. The arguments Geher uses to defend his area of study seems to miss the legitimate concerns the social science community has. He discusses the view some people have of evolutionary psychology as a form of eugenics, though this is a real concern for some people, anyone the least bit educated on the subject knows the difference. Evolutionary psychology itself isn’t …show more content…
One of the most common debates is nature versus nurture; evolutionary psychology leans mostly toward the nature side of this debate. I have a major issue with that, as a psychology major we discuss this debate a hundred times and the end result is always the same; it’s most likely pretty even. There is significantly more to being a person than just how we have biologically evolve to survive; we do know that. Our minds are so incredibly complicated that we can’t possibly try to explain them in purely biological terms like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology do. From these forms of research we can learn so much about humanity, about our history, and about cause for development in humans, but it can’t be our only focus. That’s the actual issue I run into with these studies. The men and women that study in these two fields focus too exclusively on biology and ignore the other possibilities too much to give a truly accurate depiction of humanity. And yet they insist that they’re scientific and therefore more correct and cannot be argued against; something I believe shows a complete lack of understanding of