The first time I heard a lecture on evolutionary psychology (EP), it changed my life. The professor presented theories of parental investment and sexual strategies as the basis of various human mate preferences, highlighting how men’s and women’s preferences differ in a way that solves unique adaptive problems faced by our ancestors. Within this discussion was a specific example of women’s waist-to-hip ratio, a widely researched physical feature that is not only central to evaluations of women’s attractiveness across cultures but also a cue associated with their overall reproductive value. This new knowledge about how human bodies communicate important information ultimately inspired my newfound identity as an evolutionary psychologist.

Soon, I was devouring the work of David Buss, Leda Cosmides and Doug Kenrick, among other intellectual giants in the field. This was also the time that I learned how my new career could present challenges. Warnings from mentors and various written primers aimed at criticism of evolutionary psychology came to my attention and sparked confusion. 

To me, EP was a useful theoretical engine to explain the functions of human thought and behavior. But, as I soon came to learn, my good-faith assumption was unfortunately not the only way that people viewed (and view) the field. Evolutionary psychology is frequently the object of unfounded accusations, including charges of promoting sexism and even eugenics. For instance, while I find the study of the waist-to-hip ratio to be illuminating, talk of “reproductive value” sparks concern from some critics that we are reducing people to their component parts. Even major names in other fields of psychology have described people conducting this research as deserving a “special place in hell.” As someone who now mentors students who are earnestly interested in women’s waist-to-hip ratio, this kind of value judgment is disheartening, especially if students feel discouraged in their scientific curiosity.

During my time in the field, one way I have found to deal with skeptics and critics is to ease them into discussions, starting with potentially less controversial principles and ideas, before demonstrating how the same principles could apply to more controversial ideas. For example, talking about an evolutionary basis for psychological processes (e.g., self-esteem, disgust) is perfectly fine to most people when there is no reason to think that there would be sex differences. In fact, research investigating people’s acceptance of different evolutionary psychological principles shows that politically liberal individuals and some academics are prone to reject research demonstrating psychological sex differences through evolutionary arguments in favor of so-called “nurture” explanations of these differences. So, evolutionary psychologists looking to win allies could benefit from starting with a discussion on the topics for which an adaptation generalizes across sexes.

One way I have found to deal with skeptics and critics is to ease them into discussions, starting with potentially less controversial principles and ideas, before demonstrating how the same principles could apply to more controversial ideas.

After introducing less controversial aspects of evolutionary psychology, I would recommend going a little deeper and looking for opportunities to diffuse the concerns of skeptics. Remember that many skeptics have likely heard bad-faith interpretations of EP, which makes it important to present information not only correctly, but diplomatically. For example, think about a discussion about why humans have sex. Obviously, replicating genes through reproduction is a major goal. But many from postmodernist traditions may take exception to this characterization and accuse people in my field of reductionism or determinism. After all, sex also feels good, which seems to be a good enough reason to have it. 

Nonetheless, an evolutionary explanation for sex remains capable of satisfying both of these points. One could describe the reason for sex both in terms of reproduction and pleasure, with the latter reason increasing the chances that the former will take place. This is not to say that everyone wants to, or should, reproduce; the explanation is merely descriptive and not meant to prescribe how people should live their lives.

When discussing more controversial findings, I try to find ways to also highlight noncontroversial evidence coinciding with given research. For example, considerable research suggests that heterosexual women prioritize mating with men who can make them laugh. As a consequence, men should be more likely to use humor in their relationships with women they are interested in. It would be easy for a bad-faith interpretation of these findings to suggest that the researcher is implying that men do not care about how funny women are or that the research implies that women are less funny than men. 

When presenting my own work on women’s interest in funny men, I couch these ideas with other factual statements, including that men also enjoy women who can make them laugh or who have a sense of humor. The difference here is that women’s preference for funny men is substantially larger. In my own research, I have argued that this is because the social competence inferred in funny men would likely communicate to women that such men are intelligent and savvy enough to help them in childrearing by better providing the resources needed to successfully raise children. Given that men’s physical costs for reproduction have historically been much lower than women’s (i.e., a one-time ejaculation of sperm as opposed to long pregnancy, laborious childbirth and nursing), evolutionarily the need to identify someone who appears intelligent and savvy may be less important for men than it is for women.

Ultimately, I look upon these conversations not as a chore, but as a meaningful example of evolutionary psychology in action. As anyone in my field will tell you, humans evolved to maintain bonds through cooperation and helping each other. So I view my conversations with skeptics and critics in this light and as a perfect way to highlight this fact.