Like an alcoholic to an open bar

On seeing the article about how “women are programmed for affairs by evolution”, I thought, “That’s something that cheaters are going to scarf up like an alcoholic to an open bar”. I was also astounded at its publication on a business oriented news site.

I initially debated whether to post my rebuttal. After the repeated re-posting of the article, I felt it necessary. Even radio personality, Rush Limbaugh entered the fray on this matter of this study.

On first reading the article, red warning flags started going up and alarms went off. The article references a study done by a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Texas.

Surprisingly all the sites carrying the story had NO data from the study. There was nothing to base the story on other than the report of the study. The news sources reported the study conclusions as if they were proven facts.

Wow! News sites around the world, in a co-ordinated manner, present some idea about infidelity as ‘science’ without any data. It would be one thing if they prefaced it as a theory, or idea. The news media exploited the tendency of equating research findings with ‘science’.

I like to see the numbers of a study. Things like “how many people were involved, where it was at, what they were looking at?”. Those kind of details let me know how to make sense of the data. When there’s no data and only results, I start wondering if someone is pulling a fast one.

Like the Wizard of Oz, with all his smoke and mirrors distracting you from the levers and knobs that make it happen. I saw all the smoke and noise of the article, but want to see the levers and knobs behind it.

Good science always presents its’ data, followed by the interpretation of what it means. When the interpretation is presented without data, there are questions. It also only gives you half the story. It tells you the researchers conclusions, instead of what they are basing it on.

It struck me odd, that the story was published on news sites around the world all in the past 24 hours. “Wow!” I thought. Any scientist would love for their findings to spread that far and that fast.

That is weird timing.

I’ve never heard of a researcher releasing their study results on Sundays in a manner that broadcasts it around the world that fast before. The news came out on an odd day for scientific findings and spread faster than study results often spread. Having attended those psychology research conferences, study results are not often announced on Sundays.

The rapid, wide-spread dissemination of the story makes me wonder if it’s more of a public relations campaign than reporting scientific findings.

The article itself frames ‘infidelity’ as something that has evolved.

“…the hypothesis of mate-switching means, humans have evolved to continuously look for better long-term options and test their own relationships. The researchers have also noted that this theory is more applicable to childless women whose choice of partner may have a big impact on children they may have.”

The idea that ‘infidelity is an evolutionary change that betters people’ didn’t make sense to me. I have yet to see how infidelity has bettered marriages, society or people. The article makes it sound like weak marriage bonds make for a better, more advanced society.

How many cheaters out there will take these findings on infidelity and use them to justify their actions? If they have a narcissistic tendency this kind of research will just reinforce their thinking. They will assume that infidelity proves they are superior and evolved as opposed to those un-evolved who don’t cheat.  They’ll soak it up like ‘an alcoholic to an open bar.’

This kind of data encourages and reinforces cheaters.

You have to ask, which makes for a stronger community, strong families with strong marriage ties or unstable marriages filled with infidelity and weak family ties?

Suggesting that infidelity is an evolutionary improvement runs counter to family stability. If anything cheating makes for weaker family ties.

The article also points out that “In fact, early humans, who hardly lived beyond 30, experimenting with partners could have been a key to long-term survival.”

That’s a bold statement. In fact, it is boldly prefaced with ‘in fact’. How can a researcher know this as a fact? Did the researchers personally observe early humans? For it to be ‘true’ science, the data has to be observable, and repeatable.

Did he observe those early humans? Did he watch their whole lifetimes? If not, it’s not science, it’s a theory.

Think this through. If early humans engaged in infidelity, how could infidelity be an evolutionary improvement? After thousands of years, you’d think that people would move past that. Have they evolved or are cheaters stuck in this evolution? If the evolution hasn’t happened in 6,000 years, perhaps cheaters are stuck in a regressive pattern.

As you can tell, I am not a fan of evolution, and view cheating as a bad choice rather than ‘an evolutionary development’.

A geologist friend of mine often states that “Evolution is a fairy story for adults”.

Perhaps that’s why the author of the study talks about his research using terms like a ‘leap of faith’

“the notion that we are our evolved mechanisms is alien. To think otherwise requires a leap of faith”

Five years ago, none of these texts [writings on evolutionary psychology] had anything about evolution. There’s been a massive change; an acceptance of at least certain aspects of evolutionary psychology that have never been accepted before.

Perhaps the reason that the ideas of evolutionary psychology were not accepted is that they were either weak, unscientific or unproven?

Best Regards,

Jeff

You Might Also Like To Read:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Posts