http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/why_people_believe_in_bad_idea.php

That seems highly unlikely. Just like we don’t have a desire to fill our cells with oxygen, and instead have an urge to simply breathe, we don’t have a desire to pass on genetic code. Instead we have urges that promote that end- a desire for sex, a tendency to find our young cute and worthy of our care, and so on. Culture can obliterate what our primal, evolutionary urges supposedly tell us. For the sake of preserving our DNA, we should always take devoted care of our young. Yet culture can make countless Chinese parents leave their offspring in dumpsters because of their sex. A culture that places extreme value can encourage girls to starve themselves, even though this runs agains all evolutionary sense.

But social psychology and evolutionary psychology needn’t throw up arms against each other. Culture has its powerful influence for a reason rooted in evolutionary psychology: the need to fit in with a powerful social group. To preserve ourselves and gain group support, we jump through cultural hoops, perhaps letting other evolutionary drives fall from the forefront. So, we also go to boring weddings with our spouses so that people see us as normal and like us.

I have watched with interest this and similar posts, where you extol evolutionary psychology and decry those clueless social scientists for denying our animal natures and asserting that cultural forces are the primary determinants of behavior.

As a social scientist myself, I feel some need to pitch in my thoughts here. I will not (cannot) deny the explanatory value of the work of Buss and others. But there are a couple of reasons not yet discussed for why social scientists often do not jump on the evolutionary bandwagon, at least not wholeheartedly.

First, evolutionary psychology can be invoked to explain not only relatively benign phenomena (like women wearing stiletto heels, or the fact that many more men are the Decembers in May-December romances), but also behaviors that are clearly, and immediately, harmful: rape, wife abuse, etc. To the extent that these behaviors are “explained” by evolutionary psychology, they may be viewed as more or less inevitable. How could any public policy be expected to change behavioral tendencies that have been etched into our very genes? Boys will be boys, after all.

Another reason why some social scientists may be averse to endorsing the evolutionary view is that this view accentuates the differences between the sexes, rather than the similarities. (As if people need a reason to attend more to reports of such differences!) YES, yes, there are some differences between the sexes. And perhaps some of these have arisen as a result of evolutionary forces. But when you look at the normal curves of men and women on mathematical ability, or you read studies of men who have been placed, without notice, into the role of sole caregiver for their children, you can see that the respective differences are exaggerated. Unfortunately, these exaggerations hinder social views and policies that would allow people of either sex to pursue a full range of life trajectories.

In other words, this may be a case where the (evolutionary) message is underplayed due to concerns about its effects–not unlike like parents telling their kids that Grandpa has died, but glossing over the fact that it was suicide. And the fact is, conditioning and social learning are powerful forces in shaping behavior. Be careful that you don’t understate their influence in shaping society at large—even behaviors that may have some evolutionary basis.

I think the “SSSM model” you portray is a bit of a strawman, if you are talking about actual researchers and not a layperson’s understanding. Social scientists took on board the idea of paternity anxiety long ago, and I don’t think any linguist or anthropologist today would exclude insights from human evolution. On the other hand, I’ve seen some awfully smug and simplistic pop evolutionary psychology. The funniest was an article in Scientific American which purported to explain the Mutiny on the Bounty by basically saying that the sailors wanted to go back to the island where they had shore leave and make babies with the women. As if that didn’t beg the question of why there weren’t mutinies on every ship that ever had shore leave, but this basic question never seemed to occur to the author.

On the other hand, one of my best friends in guaranteed to cancel out my vote on any issue, and certainly would disagree with me on any post I put here. Having someone to talk to is just a matter of flapping your gums.

Having someone to watch your back is a different matter, entirely. This is closer to what the coupled attendance at ceremonies is about.