[aswanson]

Sounds reasonable, leading to the prime exception I take with this whole line of inquiry known as "evolutionary psychology": the lack of falsifiability of any plausible hypothesis. You can handwave pretty much any narrative that somewhat fits the data and publish.

[ShardPhoenix]

Not only is this particular hypothesis falsifiable, it has been more or less falsified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection).

Also, it seems to me that in these kinds of discussions, a lot of these evolutionary-psychology stories are not meant to say "this is exactly why this thing evolved", but to demonstrate that there are reasons that such a thing could evolve. A lot of this kind of thinking is probably derived from arguing with anti-evolutionists who claim that such-and-such could never have evolved because it's apparently mal-adaptive.

[aswanson]

Not only is this particular hypothesis falsifiable, it has been more or less falsified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection).

That wikipedia link has absolutely nothing to do with the falsification of the narrative he proposed.

Also, it seems to me that in these kinds of discussions, a lot of these evolutionary-psychology stories are not meant to say "this is exactly why this thing evolved", but to demonstrate that there are reasons that such a thing could evolve.

I have no problems with narratives and possible explanations but if you scour the literature you will not find, on average, the qualifiers of uncertainty. I _do_ have a problem with people who take a casual glance at said literature and present their arguments with no degree of uncertainty. Just-so stories strike me as the epitome of intellectual laziness.

A lot of this kind of thinking is probably derived from arguing with anti-evolutionists who claim that such-and-such could never have evolved because it's apparently mal-adaptive.

I have no idea how this type of thinking came about and have no problem admitting it.