Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:54:30.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PsychTable.org

A tool for biopolitical researchers, policymakers, and citizens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2020

Daniel J Glass Open the ORCID record for Daniel J Glass [Opens in a new window]  and
Niruban Balachandran
Daniel J Glass*
Affiliation:
PsychTable.org, Project Co-leader, Project Co-leader, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Niruban Balachandran
Affiliation:
PsychTable.org, Project Co-leader, Project Co-leader, Cambridge, Massachusetts
*
Correspondence: Daniel Glass, PsychTable.org, Project Co-leader, Project Co-leader, CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

PsychTable.org is a new online, mass-collaborative tool for the social sciences that aggregates evidence for and classifies the evolved psychological adaptations (EPAs) that have been proposed to comprise the human mind. This article provides an overview of the need for this reference tool and how it can benefit researchers who incorporate the behavioral sciences into their work. The article walks the reader through a hypothetical use case for PsychTable.org and describes the features of the website. PsychTable.org is intended to help key stakeholders better understand the linkages between EPAs and political behavior, public policy, and ethics.

Keywords

Evolutionary behavioral scienceevolved psychological adaptationsopensciencetaxonomy; classification.
Type
Research Tool Report
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue: Disgust and Political Attitudes , Fall 2020 , pp. 228 - 233
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41(1), 49–67.10.2307/1127388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013b). The people behind DSM-5. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM_People-Behind-DSM-5.pdfGoogle Scholar
Balachandran, N. (2011). A proposed taxonomy of human evolved psychological adaptations. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(3), 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balachandran, N., & Glass, D. J. (2012). PsychTable.org: The taxonomy of human evolved psychological adaptations. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(2), 312–320.Google Scholar
Barton, J. J., Press, D. Z., Keenan, J. P., & O’Connor, M. (2002). Lesions of the fusiform face area impair perception of facial configuration in prosopagnosia. Neurology, 58(1), 71–78.10.1212/WNL.58.1.71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (2005). Dimensional versus categorical classification of mental disorders in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and beyond: Comment on the special section. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(4), 551–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53(5), 533–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Fiddick, L., & Bryant, G. A. (2005). Detecting cheaters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 505–506.10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool for an evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.Google Scholar
Gray, T. (2012). Elements: A visual exploration of every known atom in the universe. Black Dog & Leventhal.Google Scholar
Kelly, D. (2011). Yuck! The nature and moral significance of disgust. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Khoury, B., Langer, E. J. and Pagnini, F., (2014). The DSM: Mindful science or mindless power? A critical review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00602Google Scholar
Kurzban, R., & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Making hay out of straw? Real and imagined controversies in evolutionary psychology. In Barkow, J. H. (Ed.), Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists (pp. 149–161). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15(10), 643–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J., Carter, S., Anthony, S. H., & Overton, P. G. (2006). Is disgust a homogeneous emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120(1), 65–84.10.1037/a0030778CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, S., Klassen, C., Borisova, O., & Clothier, H. (2013). The DSM-5 controversies: How should psychologists respond? Canadian Psychology/psychologie canadienne, 54(3), 166–175.Google Scholar