Klasios, who asserts that my recent critique of evolutionary psychology contains egregious misunderstandings and a straw-man presentation of its theoretical assumptions, claims to outline the real position of evolutionary psychology while proffering a more accurate treatment of the neurobiological issues involved. On the contrary, I attempt to show that Klasios frequently misstates my position and that his arguments repeatedly prove my own. His evidentiary neurobiological examples meant to criticize my position are nearly identical to those provided by myself in pointing toward an alternative to evolutionary psychology—which suggests an unwillingness to seriously conceptualize a non-“blank-slate” null hypothesis. Klasios’ call to avoid the term “innate” and accept a revised terminology of modularity is also criticized, while his reductionist appeal to thermodynamics is argued to reveal what is most at stake in the debate between evolutionary psychologists and its critics: whether the future of psychology will leave adequate room for personhood in its conceptualization of the human mind.
BarrettC. H. (2006). Modularity and design reincarnation. In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The innate mind: Vol. 2. Culture and cognition (pp. 199–217). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
BarrettC. H. (2012). A hierarchical model of the evolution of human brain specializations. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(Suppl 1), 10733–10740. doi:10.1073/pnas.1201898109
3.
BarrettC. H.KurzbanR. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113(3), 628–647. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.113.3.628
4.
BronowskiJ. (1973). The ascent of man. London, UK: BBC.
5.
BussD. M. (2005). Introduction: The emergence of evolutionary psychology. In BussD. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. xxiii-xxv). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
6.
ChiappeD.GardnerR. (2012). The modularity debate in evolutionary psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22, 669–682. doi:10.1177/0959354311398703
7.
DennettD. C.WeinerP. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co.
8.
DerksenM. (2005). Against integration: Why evolution cannot unify the social sciences. Theory & Psychology, 15, 139–162. doi:10.1177/0959354305051360
9.
FodorJ. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
GanttE. E.MellingB. S.ReberJ. S. (2012). Mechanisms or metaphors? The emptiness of evolutionary psychological explanations. Theory & Psychology, 22, 823–841. doi:10.1177/0959354311434071
11.
GergenK. J. (2010). The acculturated brain. Theory & Psychology, 20, 795–816. doi:10.1177/0959354310370906
12.
HabermasJ. (2007). The language game of responsible agency and the problem of free will: How can epistemic dualism be reconciled with ontological monism?Philosophical Explorations, 10(1), 13–50. doi:10.1080/13869790601170128
13.
KlasiosJ. (2014). Evolutionary psychology and design reincarnation: A reply to Peters. Theory & Psychology, 24, 124–134. doi:10.1177/0959354313505729
LopezA. C.McDermottR. (2012). Adaptation, heritability, and the emergence of evolutionary political science. Political Psychology, 33(3), 343–362. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2012.00880.x
16.
MalikK. (2002). Man, beast, and zombie: What science can and cannot tell us about human nature. London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
17.
MalikK. (2008). Strange fruit: Why both sides are wrong in the race debate. Oxford, UK: Oneworld.
18.
MarcusG. (2004). The birth of the mind: How a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19.
PaikS.RingachD. L. (2011). Retinal origin of orientation maps in visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 14(7), 919–925. doi:10.1038/nn.2824
20.
PankseppJ.BivenL. (2012). The archaeology of mind: Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotion. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
21.
PankseppJ.MoskalJ. R.PankseppJ. B.KroesR. A. (2007). Comparative approaches in evolutionary psychology: Molecular neuroscience meets the mind. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 49(3–4), 101–111.
22.
PankseppJ.PankseppJ. (2000). The seven sins of evolutionary psychology. Evolution and Cognition, 6(2), 108–131.
23.
PetersB. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: Neglecting neurobiology in defining the mind. Theory & Psychology, 23, 305–322. doi:10.1177/0959354313480269
24.
PinkerS. (1997). How the mind works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
25.
RenierL.De VolderA. G.RauscheckerJ. P. (in press). Cortical plasticity and preserved function in early blindness. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.025
26.
RichardsonR. C. (2007). Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
RillingJ. K. (2006). Human and nonhuman primate brains: Are they allometrically scaled versions of the same design?Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, And Reviews, 15(2), 65–77.
28.
SamuelsR. (2002). Nativism in cognitive science. Mind & Language, 17(3), 233–265.
29.
StanovichK. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
TallisR. (2003). The hand: A philosophical inquiry into human being. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
31.
TallisR. (2004a). I am: A philosophical inquiry into first-person being. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
32.
TallisR. (2004b). The knowing animal: A philosophical inquiry into knowledge and truth. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
33.
TallisR. (2011). Aping mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. Durham, UK: Acumen Publishing.
34.
ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In BarkowJ.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ZaidelD. W.NadalM.FlexasA.MunarE. (2013). An evolutionary approach to art and aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(1), 100–109. doi:10.1037/a0028797
