Key Terms in Evolutionary Biology of Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Extrapolation

Definition
Extrapolation is to make a generalization based on narrow data. Many prominent theories in evolutionary psychology rely on this method. Extrapolation often results in irresponsible use of comparisons or drawing broad conclusions from statistically insignificant data.

Example(s) of use in context
The famous psychoanalysist Sigmund Freud frequently used extrapolation as a means of justification “Freud was well aware of his own tendency to build and enormous body of deduction from a single fact...”. He would base elaborate theories that were supposed to apply to the whole of humanity off of just one person, or a few peoples experiences. He is well known for his theory of penis envy and his work has been extremely influential in Western thought. Martha McCaughey compares his work with other prominent thinkers “...historian Alfred Kelly explain that a handful of thinkers (for example, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Isaac Newton, and Friedrich Nietzsche) are the source of many widely held ideas, and that the paths these ideas took into the minds of millions remains largely uncharted”. His work became a part of Western collective consciousness “Because Freud's followers could only see woman in the image defined by Freud-inferior, childish, helpless, with no possibility of happiness unless she adjusted to being man's passive object-they wanted to help women get rid of their suppressed envy, their neurotic desire to be equal. They wanted to help women find sexual fulfillment as women, by affirming their natural inferiority”. Even though his theories had very little evidence to back them up, many people took his word as truth, which furthered existing gender inequality because his ideas asserted that women were supposed to naturally be inferior to men. In this sense, Freud used extrapolation, or very little evidence, to build elaborate theories that has influenced countless people.

Scientific background
Extrapolation is a very common and often problematic way of asserting theories in evolutionary sciences. Donald Symons writes “...the Nambikuara chief selects from among the prettiest and healthiest available girls, not because beautiful young women have been arbitrarily singled out by Nambikuara culture or society as symbols of status, but because men universally value them. For prestige to have evolved as an autonomous human motive-which it undoubtedly has-the effort and risk that achieving high status entails must have been recompensed with reproductive success. Hominid males who were satisfied with tokens of prestige that were arbitrary with respect to fitness must always have been less successful reproductively than males who 'innately' preferred to receive attractive young wives”. Lewontin et al. explain the problems of comparing one instance in one culture to all instances “The point is again a structure of argument that (without convincing evidence) traces complex human social interactions to simple biological causes and locates them in a domain so removed from present intervention as to appear inevitable and irredeemable” (154). Donald Symon is clearly extrapolating in his Nambikuara story using insufficient evidence to try to explain why men "univerisally value women". McCaughty also writes about her frustration by poor extrapolation in the evolutionary sciences “First of all, the evolutionary explanation of men's sexual behavior is an all-encompassing narrative enabling men to frame their own thoughts and experiences through it. As such, it's a grand narrative, a totalizing theory explaining men's experiences as though all men act and feel the same way, and as though the ideas of Western science provide a universal truth about those actions and feelings”. While not all evolutionary science relies on extrapolation, the stories that do are can be extremely problematic.

History
Extrapolation has often been used to justify racists and sexists claims. In Cynthia Eagle Russett's book Sexual Science it becomes quite clear that many scientific frameworks have that been popularly believed originated from sexist and or racist roots and justified by poor extrapolation. She writes  "The situation [referring to Victorian Anglo-American science] was one in which a truly modest quantity of reliable data was made to support a formidable body of theory...It forced scientists to rely for the most part not on clinical results or laboratory evidence but on common knowledge and the obiter dicta of their predecessors.  Again and again the same names were cited, gaining authority whit each citation.  Alternatively, some scientists became master of extrapolation, the classic instance being that of Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson's interpretation of sex differences based on the distinction between sperm and ovum". The instance which Russett refers to and explains in subsequent paragraphs are Thomson and Geddes idea that women and "primitive people" (to Thomson and Geddes that means anyone who is not a white European male) are "behind" men in evolution. To them evolution is a scale where certain beings are more evolved than other beings, women in this case are behind men. Their lack of evolutionary development compared to men was because women needed to save their energy in order to protect their eggs. Thus, woman never developed higher evolutionary characteristics such as beards, nor would she ever be able to reach an intellectual level equivalent to male. Evolution created these differences between men and women meaning it is sexually appealing for man to be attracted to fragility in women and everything that is opposite to man. They concluded that “...women could never expect to match the intellectual and artistic achievements of men, nor could they expect and equal share of power and authority. Nature had decreed a secondary role for women” Thomason and Geddes are guilty of poor extrapolation. They used insufficent evidence to justify their erroneous claims that women and "primitive peoples" are innately inferior to men. As Russet writes "The allged sex differences lacked proof, they argued, and even tose that might be shown to exit were unlikely to be innate, but were probably the result of social factors"  Extrapolation as a method of justification of a theory has had a long history of attempting to support fallacious claims as true scientific thought where they are anything but.

Debates
Extrapolation is viewed as a necessary tool for making informed sound theories by many scientists. The problem arises when people disagree as to what is a valid instance of extrapolation versus an invalid instance. Martha McCaughey interprets evolutionary theory explaining men's sexuality as grossly over generalized, often supported by extrapolation "...the evolutionary explanation of men's sexual behavior is an all-encompassing narrative enabling men to frame their own thoughts and experiences through it....a totalizing theory explaining men's experiences as though all men act and feel the same way, and as though the ideas of Western science provide a universal truth about those actions and feelings". Whereas on the other hand, many people do not view evolutionary theories of men's sexuality as improper forms of extrapolation, but as a valid way to view how human males' sexuality has evolved. Donald Symons quoted above regarding the Nambikuara is a great example of this.

Contributors
Hayley Maier

Author
edited by Sarah Adelaida McIntire

Suggestions for further reaing include:

The Caveman Mystique by Martha McCaughey The Evolution of Human Sexuality by Donald Symons Not in Our Genes by Lewontin, Rose and Karmin

Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti Also visit Feminist.com References