Recently, the doubts and questions plaguing the theory of evolutionary psychology have boiled up to the mainstream press.

    最近，圍繞進化論心理學的質疑已經進入到大眾媒體

    Questioning Evolutionary Psychology

    Something is afoot in the story of us.

    Well it's pretty cool when we can see scientific viewpoints turning, slowly of course. Also known as a paradigm shift. Right now, it appears evolutionary psychology is under mainstream fire.

    Put simply, evo psych posits that favorable traits during our hunter-gatherer days persisted in our modern contexts. Natural selection carved our behavior and locked it in place. For example: so-called rape genes are passed on to modern males because the cave dwellers who carried rape genes sired more offspring and thus passed on that trait or adaptation to more descendents than those without the trait. And so that's why we have rape today. This is obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

    The public is drawn to evo psych because it provides a most desired thing: a neat reason, or excuse, for who we are; how we behave. That is not easily questioned, because it's essentially unverifiable. We can't go back in time to prove it.

    With the appearance of a New York Times op-ed by David Brooks and a feature piece by Sharon Begley in Newsweek, the evo psych paradigm is being questioned in front of the general public.

    These authors break the fanfare with two hits: evo psych depends on a relatively static environment over millennia, which evidence shows not to be the case. Our environment changes, and so the potential to engage genetic potential changes, dependent on the environment. Secondly, neuroplasticity appears to be firmly established, and the brain has extraordinary malleability and is able to adapt to different contexts over time. In short, the authors and their quoted researchers say the core of human nature lies in its "variability [across cultures and contexts] and its flexibility."

    挑戰進化論心理學

    我們的故事中有些新動向。

    當我們看到科學觀點正在轉變的時候，這是一件很酷的事情，當然了，這樣的轉變是很緩慢的。這種轉變也稱之為"范式轉移"（paradigm shift）.目前，進化論心理學似乎正處于大眾主流媒體的攻擊之下。

    簡單的說，進化論心理學認為人類在狩獵時期的一些有利特點在我們現代社會中繼續保留了下來。自然選擇塑造了我們的行為方式，進而把它固定下來。比如：所謂的強暴基因就傳到了現代社會的男性身上，這是因為與那些沒有這種基因的人相比較，攜帶強暴基因的遠古穴居者能繁衍更多的后代，從而把這種特點或適應傳給更多的后代。這就是為什么我們當今的社會存在強暴的原因。很顯然這個例子過于簡化了，但是能讓你明白其中的思想。

    公眾被進化論心理學吸引，是因為這個理論提供了一個最讓人心儀的東西：為解釋我們是誰以及我們如何行事提供了一個漂亮的推理或者說一個借口。這不容易受到質疑，因為它基本上不可證實。我們不能倒回時間去證明。

    隨著David Brooks在《紐約時報》（New York Times）的一篇評論文章以及Sharon Begley在《新聞周刊》（Newsweek）的一篇特邀文章的出現，進化論心理學的范式正受到大眾的挑戰。

    這些作者用兩個證據對進化論心理學"熱潮"進行了挑戰：進化論心理學依賴于一個在幾千年的時間里相對靜止的環境，而證據顯示這并非事實。我們的環境一直在改變，所以根據環境的變化，包含基因在內的潛在改變也在改變。另外一個方面，神經可塑性似乎已經牢固地建立起來了，而且大腦具有超常的可塑性，從而經過一定時間后能夠適應不同的環境。簡而言之，這些作者以及他們引述的研究者們稱，人類本性的核心在于它的"可變性[遍及不同的文化和環境]和靈活性".

    Vocabulary:

    Plague: 瘟疫；困擾，糾纏

    Evolutionary: 進化論的

    Psychology: 心理學

    Evo psych: Evolutionary Psychology的縮寫形式

    Afoot: 進行之中

    Paradigm: 榜樣

    Trait: 特質

    Persist: 持續存在

    Sire: 成為父親

    Offspring: 后代

    Descendent: 后裔

    Oversimplification: 過于簡化

    Unverifiable: 不可證實的

    Op-ed: 評論文章

    Fanfare: 喇叭聲；浮夸

    Static: 靜態的

    Millennia: 千年（復數）

    Neuroplasticity: 神經可塑性

    Malleability: 可塑性

    Variability: 可變性

    Flexibility: 靈活性