Wright chapter 2: Eager males and choosy females..main topics:
P33 Sexual selection
P35 Asymmetrical parental investment as the cause of asymmetry in mating choice
P36 Conscious control vs uncalculated attraction; can we be victims of our genes?
P39 Trivers’ elaboration of parental investment concept
P48 Exceptional cases of male parental investment support the Darwinian theoretical framework
P49 Parental investment asymmetry in humans vs. apes, e.g. gorillas
P53 How far does reason free us from genetic constraint?
Incompleteness of evolutionary explanations
If children who live in third world villages behave in similar ways to children who live in thriving cities,
how can behaviorism and the blank slate idea be correct? -pg 6 If natural selection and adaption are
suppose to weed out the "bad" and leave only the "good" then why are there still criminals and thieves
in the world? Why isn't there one set of moral codes? -pg's 26, 27 Are male and female roles genetically
based through "sexual selection" or are they placed on us by cultural norms? -pg 34 -Samantha Wilk
Wright argues that natural selection and evolution explain many of the 'universal' traits that are found in
humans across cultures that "are as far apart as two cultures can be" (pg 45). He writes that by the
nature and processes of natural selection, how we are, how we feel towards people, etc. is largely an
accident (pg 24). Although I recognize possible scientific justifications for certain human qualities like
guilt, I personally do not think that all people behave or think the way they do for purely scientific
reasons. I know that my life is driven by numerous environmental factors and personal choices that are
influenced by religious beliefs and other experiences. Angela Twibey
- "Understanding the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the first step toward understanding
that - in many realms, not just sex - we're all puppets, and our best hope for even partial liberation is to
try to decipher the logic of the puppeteer"(pg 37) -What allows for that understanding? Is it also a
product of genes to be able to expand our awareness of the unconscious? Or rather, is it something
learned based on experiences and symbols?
-What does this entail for the Trobrianders (pg 44)
who, as hard it is to imagine, seemed to not have made the connection between sex and reproduction?
In this department at least, are they less consciously aware than the rest of the world? - Does being in
touch with yourself and understanding your actions mean that you have more awareness and control of
your genetic influences? -Ronald Robertson
Naturalistic Fallacy africanqueen.gif
In the first chapter of The Moral Animal, the author states that there are two disclaimers, the second
being that "to say something is 'natural' is not to say that it is good" (Wright 31). It seems that in our
culture, people often use the words "natural" and "good" as synonyms. For example: Eating meat is
natural, people should eat meat -- is the fact that it is "natural" justification for eating meat? Do you
agree or disagree with Wright's disclaimer? Megan
I also think it would be interesting to discuss the moral meaning of Darwinian theory (p. 10). There is a
big debate on the inclusion of evolutionary theory in school based on this concept or fear of individuals
adopting morals based on the ideas. -Theresa Mejia
Why are females finicky?
What is the reason for abstinence? If human's purpose in nature is to survive and reproduce, isn't the
concept of abstinence ludicrous? Nam Joo (Johnny) Kim
Wright talks about the idea of male eagerness and female coyness in the sexual relationship between
men and women (p 34). How is this similar to or different from homosexual sexual relationships?
Wright discusses differences in male and female sexuality and how natural selection has affected it (p
36). As our environment changes and new technology is created, like in vitro fertilization or
contraception, does the nature of our sexuality change as well? -Julia Drizin
According to Darwin natural selection makes some traits in a mate more valuable and desirable. As the
males can mate with as many females as they desire why wouldn't all the females pursue the same
mate? If the true deciding factor was in the aspect of the getting the best genes into the offspring? The
text covered this idea on 35-39 - Halie
One of the conclusions made in Tuesday's reading states "...male license and (relative) female reserve
are to some extent innate" (p. 46). However, is this strictly related to sexual appetite? If this relates to
general disposition I would disagree with Wright's claim. If these dispositions were innate they would
be present at birth, however I argue that there is no such difference seen in the very young ages of
children. –Theresa
How did the (incorrect) feministic view of innate sexual symmetry harm women? (p. 31) Does it build a
standard that most women cannot live up to? Does it pressure women to be more sexual? -Masha
Parental investment
According to Darwin natural selection makes some traits in a mate more valuable and desirable. As the
males can mate with as many females as they desire why wouldn't all the females pursue the same
mate? If the true deciding factor was in the aspect of the getting the best genes into the offspring? The
text covered this idea on 35-39 Halie
On page 42, chapter 2, Wright describes that "parental investment is any investment by the parent in an
individual offspring that increases the offspring's chance of surviving at the cost of the parent's ability to
invest in other offspring". It is very hard to hear a mom saying that but a common feeling between
parents is to have a favorite son or daughter. I was wondering if unconsciously the parent knows which
child will be pass better and strong genes to other generations. Cristiane Jimenez=
Evolution now
First, in reference to natural selection as a whole, does it mean that since people with a lower
socioeconomic standing have more babies within their lifetime that over millions of years the people of
a higher socioeconomic standing who reproduce less often and later in life will slowly be reduced in
number and later extinct since hipothetically that is what happened to the gorrila XY gene for the XXY?
Second, will the choosiness of females be reduce over time with such a prevalent use of contraceptives?
(p. 46 more or less) -Holly Belasco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU
On page 27, chapter 1, Wright says that what generates pressure is hostile environment and the
evolution of human beings has consisted of adaptation to one another. My first question is how animals
and humans can be adapted and evolve in the global climate that is currently change very fast. -Cristiane
I feel as though human evoluation has slowed down - and i wonder if this is due to our monogamous
lifestyles? We're not giving our gene pool the chance to garner 'fitness' -Masha
Miscellaneous
How did being born into the Victorian era that revered the quality of self-discipline and caused a
constant struggle within the male population to resist temptations of indulgence (as described by a
student of Victorianism on p 20) affect the theories that Darwin later proposed? -Kayla Dreher
"Natural selection appears to have hidden our true selves from our conscious selves" (p.10) why? i know
i'm sure we'll probably get to this at some point later in the book, but it has definitely peaked my
curiosity. What would be the cause of such a masking? What would be the purpose - if natural selection
is driven by adaptability, what is the adaptive reason behind a person not knowing who their "true self"
is. In social psychology, they say that when one thinks about oneself, and are made aware of their "true
self" they suffer displeasure (become anxious, depressed, low self esteem etc)... might this be the
reason why? A person cannot handle 'not measuring up' to their ideals, and so they never explore such
ideals? Hmm.. -Masha
Role of culture
After finishing chapters 1 and 2, I found the section of cultural
relativity very interesting. The quote that was most relevant was "many
differences between people were due to differences in their culture and if
one wished to understand people one must necessarily understand their
culture" (p. 15). This argument is the basis for several of my educational
studies course that I took for my minor. The focus was that teachers who
are responsible for educating students from different cultures must
understand the culture of their students in order to best reach them.
Later, the author of our text writes that "No longer do we assume that,
for instance, working-class people speak differently from middle- and
upper-class people because they are biologically inferior; we know now
that it is an effect of culture" (p. 15). This is similar to my EDS
classes as we discussed differences in culture which effect learning
ability. One difference we focused on was that between classes, with
middle- and upper-class parents being able to spend time volunteering in
their child's classroom or donating money or supplies. Both of which the
working-class families were often unable to provide. - Danielle Dunio
BONUS QUESTIONS FROM DON
It is often maintained that an evolutionary explanation for physical or psychological attributes
should describe how the attribute works to "the benefit of the species", so why does Dawkins
say “It is not differential species extinction itself which constitutes the process of natural
selection. If you understand that, then you understand Darwinism in my view”?
Are there situations where it seems appropriate to yield to the naturalistic fallacy? (For instance,
is it acceptable to promote tolerance of homosexuality by showing evidence that it is genetically
influenced?) On what basis can such questions be decided?
Chapter 3: Men and Women
P56 Pair bonding: Desmond Morris criticized
P57 Trivers: Male parental investment (MPI)
P59 What women want: resources? Status? Kindness, Helpfulness? Incentives to male deceit, betrayal
P63 Philandering in the modern environment: does contraception make this acceptable to women?
P64 What men want: age asymmetry; youth and beauty; male/female differences in jealousy.
P69 Reproductive incentives for women to cheat; significance of size of testes
P72, 78 Madonna/Whore dichotomy
P74 How two Samoan girls kidded Margaret Mead
P86 Reproductive costs and benefits of divorce
P89 Culture and polygyny
Pair bonding
Why are some men faithful? According to Darwinism, shouldn't most men be as promiscuous as
possible? (p 56)
How does the development of the family unit help to ensure that our genes continue to be passed
down? (p 57)
-Julia Drizin
1) Is it equally possible that the tendency for women to choose faithful male partners would cause men
with a "faithful" gene to improve? Why is it that the assumption is made that men become better at
tricking the woman? (p. 61-63)
2) Is the fact that men are typically less attracted to postmenopausal women a possible "genetic"
explanation for the tendency of some (most?) men to leave aging wives for younger women? (p. 65)
3) Can the fact that women hide ovulation and don't know themselves when they are ovulating a
possible argument for monogamous relationships? If a man sleeps with many women once, there is a
chance she may not be "fertile" at the time of intercourse. Forming a relationship leads to regular sex
and, therefore, a higher probability of impregnation. It seems that there could be a genetic drive to
sleep with someone often rather than the "one night stand". (p.68) -Theresa
Madonna-Whore dichotomy
4) Why doesn't the "madonna-whore" dichotomy also explain why a woman wouldn't want a
promiscuous, or seemingly promiscuous, man. If a woman is designed to want a committed partner,
wouldn't a man overly interested in sex be seen as a "whore" and, therefore, loose appeal in the same
way a woman would? Furthermore, if a man received a reputation as a man who slept around, wouldn't
a woman realize he was not necessarily a great candidate? (p. 72) -Theresa
I wonder if women have come to regard sex the same way as described for men - to sleep around with
someone they don't see as an investment, but wait for someone they actually see a future with. -Masha
Wright argues that men categorize women into two types of women- the kind you want to sleep with
(short term) and the kind you would like to bear your children (long term investment). He coins this
phenomenon the 'Madonna-Whore dichotomy' (pg 72). I agree that some men have previously and still
do think along these lines; however, I would contend that there is a growing trend towards a unification
of these two supposed different types of women into one woman with two different sides to her.
Perhaps a result of feminism, modernization, or simple unearthing of behaviors that have existed all
along, I find that women are no longer as afraid to be sexually promiscuous and even find a sense of
empowerment in it. Sure, no one wants to be called a 'slut' but I also feel that nowadays women can
have multiple sexual partners in her party years and still be considered a formidable candidate for a
wife/mother by a man. –Angela
- What about men who fall (long-term) for the "bad" girl? Is this just a case of MPI genes encouraging a
man to stay with an attractive mate by means of jealousy and fear of losing her to others just waiting for
her to be single? Is that all love/infatuation is? Or just (hopefully) a lousy version of one of the two?Perhaps it only pertains to the modern era, but I feel as if cues indicating a lack of sexual experience
could actually be a red flag in terms of a long-term partner choice. A lack of sexual experience could
consequently indicate a lack of knowledge about what one wants in a sexual partner and in a sense, an
absence of that "get it out of your system" phase that many need to go through before settling down. Ronald
Sperm competition?
Also, since according to Baker and Bellis (p. 71) the quantity of a man´s sperm depends on the amount
of time he has been out of sight of his mate, would couples who have trouble conceiving have a better
chance spending time out of sight from one another to increase the sperm count and would therefore
better their chances of conception? -Holly
Wright suggests on page 72 that female infidelity can be related back to the variability of male sperm
density, and that it is proven that when a male has not seen his mate for an extended period of time
that the number of sperm in his ejaculate increases. However, his mate will either be pregnant or not
pregnant on his return, and even if she was faithful or unfaithful, the amount of sperm in the male's
ejaculate doesn't seem to matter much anymore. If she is pregnant, that his sperm will prove useless,
while if she is not pregnant, the normal amount of sperm would have the same effect as a more potent
dose. The only way a male could tell that his female was unfaithful would be by her pregnancy, which
would be too late for him. So how does variable sperm count explain an unfaithful woman? Lara Schoen
Does divorce make people more "fit" than people who stay in long-term marriages and if so has divorce
become a group selection? -pg 87 -Samantha Wilk
"Every day feelings and thoughts are genetic weapons" (p89) kind of blew my mind. The implications are
vast and make me question everything I feel, and everyone's actions around me.. Masha
Polygyny
It is true that a huge majority of societies have permitted a man to have more that one wife and with
our divorce rate in the US now above/around 50%, Morris could have been talking about our society
when he said "any society that has failed to advance has in some sense failed, 'gone wrong'" (p
91).Wright is correct in his description that in today's society if a married man "falls in love with a
younger woman we say: Okay, you can marry her, but we insist that you desert your first wife and that a
stigma be placed on your kids and that, if you don't make much money, your kids would suffer
miserably" where in other cultures they have said "Okay, you can marry her, but only if you can really
afford a second family; and you can't desert your first family, and there won't be a stigma placed on
your kids." (p 91) I like his idea that maybe we should get rid of the whole idea of divorce and go back to
this way of thinking, but I think that there are a lot of other factors to divorce in today's society that he
does not take into account. -Kayla
If we are naturally "mildly polygynous" (p 90), then why is polygyny socially unacceptable in many
modern industrial societies? –Julia
Why is it that polygamy is so unaccepted if it is such a natural behavior for many animals, assuming that
we are just another type of animal? -Jeffrey
Culture and choice in the evolutionary perspective:
"We have huge brains whose whole reason for being is deft adjustment to variable conditions. Given the
many things about a person's social environment that can alter the value of being a Madonna versus a
whore, a cad versus a dad.... natural selection would be uncharacteristically obtuse not to favor genes
that build brains sensitive to these things." (81) It would appear, then, that natural selection has imbued
us with a sense of individual free will, and of choice concerning not only our role in the world, but also
how we view ourselves and our environment. This runs contrary to the deterministic view of genetic
inheritance that would suggest that we are merely the sum of our genetic parts, and I wonder: Is this
plasticity, this ability to learn and judge for ourselves, this built-in "free will," the most important of our
selectively advantageous adaptations? -Tyler Vasconcellos
Wright argues, to quickly summarize, that men seek the best way to have many partners, in an attempt
to increase their chances of increasing offspring, while women choose quality over quantity. The
obvious question is how this is still prevalent to modern day if we ourselves never think to think this
exact thought. Wright steadfastly argues that humans are more subtle that you might guess", and this
may not be so evident to us. Rather it is something we think about, and may even be programmed to be
hidden from ourselves. Is this too easy of an answer? Does this simple solution only work
under discursive framework? Does it realistically, actually apply to how we act? -Sylvia
Frequency dependent Selection
Can I please have some clarification for frequency dependence? I read that section twice, and I'm rather
confused... –Masha
In the example of the bluegill sunfish, the male usually plays two roles: the "upstanding" male or the
"drifter." The two roles work together harmoniously because if one population grows, the system would
not work. Do you think that there are similar systems in the human species? Perhaps this is why, even
with evolution, we still have "undesirable" traits? pg79 -Megan
Miscellaneous
This chapter mentions that gorillas are not conscious of biological paternity. I remember learning from
a different class that an experiment showed that people could identify the father of a baby easier than
the mother of the baby. So in theory, children look more like their father than mother. This experiment
was based on humans. If this was the case for gorillas as well, wouldn't gorillas know to some degree
which babies belonged to who? By seeing a baby resemble another gorilla, the gorilla will know that the
baby probably isn't their own and would not have to invest in its survival. I don't think gorillas knew
what they looked like, so they wouldn't know which baby resembled them. I think that alongside the "be
nice to children if you've had a fair amount of sex with their mothers" gene, I think that there is also a
"be nice to children that doesn't resemble another adult gorilla" gene. -Jody Mak
Wright claims that "monogamy is more common among carnivorous mammals than among vegetarians"
and I think it would be fascinating to have a study that tests this hypothesis in today's male, female
population. -pg 58 -Samantha
Why would it, in any situation, be evolutionarily advantageous for an individual to fall victim
to unconscious self-deception such as described in the reading? -Evan
Is jealousy hard wire to everybody or the ones with lower self esteem? If a high valued male finds his
spouse cheating why would he be upset? He may feel disappointed but he has the flexibility to go and
find another mate with ease. -Nam Joo (Johnny) Kim
Pg. 85-86, Darwinism and Public Policy, I am unsatisfied of the way that he addresses the idea that "one
can dream up wholly different kinds of Darwinian theories about how sexual strategies get shaped" and
rapidly dismisses by saying that "one can't argue that evolutionary psychology is not relevant to the
discussion." I feel that Wright has already introduced the way and reasons of how and why things evolve
through natural selection, that he does not spend enough time explaining the evolution of
thought/mind. It is easy to assume that if the phenotype is (non)attractive; then it could result in X type
of behavior. Wright does not mention the nurture vs/and nurture aspect (aside from MPI); enough to
assume that a one specific event will lead to certain behaviours. -Aavila
Why do men stay in situations of adoption or in marriages where they care for children that are not
known to be biologically theirs if ¨what men want¨ is based off of their desire to spread their genes?
In general, how do the ideas of polygamy and monogamy explain the relationships of
gays/homosexuals? –Holly
What is the evolutionary benefit of women to be in the menopause state if they are not sexually
attractive in a evolutionary psychology perspective and why they still have the urge to have sex if they
can't procreate, is that a consequence of the increase of life expectancy and because of it in millions
years we could see a change in the women physiology? on page 65. –Cristiane
QUESTIONS FROM DON
Is Wright’s the Madonna/Whore dichotomy objectively valid, valid only as a stereotyped
reaction by males, or just invalid?
Compare current American practices on marriage with more stable traditional monogamous and
polygynous societies, (Wright,90). Why does Wright say we have the worst of both worlds
(104)?
How might concealed ovulation have aided reproductive fitness? (We’ll return to this I suspect).
What is Wright’s the Madonna/Whore dichotomy? Is it just objectively valid, valid only as a
stereotyped reaction by males, or just invalid?
What is Wright’s the Madonna/Whore dichotomy? Is it just objectively valid, valid only as a
stereotyped reaction by males, or just invalid?
Chapter 4: The marriage market
P93 Monogamy/Polygyny and economic stratification
Pg 98 "All told, institutionalized monogamy, though often viewed as a big victory for egalitarianism and
for women, is emphatically not egalitarian in its effects on women. Polygny would more more evenly
distribute the assets of males among them..." I have a problem with this portion and come to question
its validity since Wright contradicts some of the very basic assertions he spends the last 3 chapters on. 1Women want a man's resources/gifts lavishly showered upon her and this wouldn't happen as often in a
polygnous society, since one man has to equally spread his wealth and TIME among several women,
therefore minimizing the resources he can spend on any particular woman. And 2 (more importantly)earlier, Wright argues that men must spend TIME on their progeny individually, to raise these "poor
helpless sacks of flesh," in order to ensure that their genes will successfully carry into following
generations. In a polygnous society, men would not have ample time to devote to each
child.Subsequently, the male would lose out in furthering his genetic inheritance and the female would
lose out in attaining ample resources, right? -Sarah-Nicole //Russ
Which gender does monogamy serve? In Wright's example involving a ranking of 2000 people (pg 97),
who other than the very top ranking woman/women would prefer monogamy? Then what he said about
monogamy not being "a plus for women collectively" is only true because of that very small "top"
percentile. Therefore he need not have made that distinction that monogamy is not a plus for women
collectively in order to get to the point of the thesis about how the one-woman-per-man compromise
was made between men. Maybe it was simply his fast and careless writing style, but it sounded as if he
was attempting some diplomacy with a touchy subject -- preparing the reader for his next thesis by
sounding less pushy, even insecure. His next paragraph about "egalitarian values" made me all the more
bored by his seeming coyness to carelessly stating blunt/unabashed opinions (though i guess all the
diplomacy is for the sake of pushing forth this new science). However, this was mitigated by my
amusement with the next line. "Few things are more anxiety-producing for an elite governing class than
gobs of sex-starved and childless men with at least a modicum of political power." (p98) -Shaheen Jadali
Wright gives an example of a situation where women and men are ranked and illustrates how "it is men
who control sheerly political powers [ and men] who have cut most of the big political deals" (98).
However, if this is true, that those men who are the most rich and powerful also get the same status of
women, then why is it so ubiquitous that rich powerful men are mainly concerned with their own power
and wealth rather than family. Isn't this deleterious to an evolutionary standpoint? -Sylvea //Halie
>Do people in this class, especially the women, feel that women would be better off in a society where
polygamy is a norm? Wright explains (pg 96) that an average woman would become a second wife to a
wealthy and powerful husband who has a bounty of resources to offer her and her children as opposed
to being in a monogamous relationship with an average husband who cannot offer her the same
comforts. This would then "trickle down" so that even women who are not willing to share a husband
would benefit by marrying a status/wealth level up from where they started. Our society today
outwardly frowns upon marrying for money or power, however I suspect that many of us have never
been faced with marrying into poverty. Perhaps becoming wife number two or three of an extremely
wealthy man will sound more appealing after eating out of the trash for a week and facing the unsafe
and harsh environments that come with being homeless. Also, consider parents that so often tell their
children that their partner isn't good enough for them, or that they could do better. Wright makes an
interesting point to consider on page 98: in highly stratified society where wealth and power is held by a
select few, polygamy is common among the wealthy because they can afford to support many wives and
they have the power to keep unlucky mate-less males away. With that Wright notes that Christianity,
which promotes monogamous relationships and equality among men, has traditionally been pitched to
poor and powerless men. This belief system would bode well for the lower end of society because they
have nothing to lose and much to gain (a wife and a fair society.) Wright mentions that society would be
safer if all men had wives to subdue their sexual desires and perhaps once he has children to partake in
safer activities because of his unconscious genetic investment in his child's well-being (pg 102.) What
about abusive relationships? Also is divorce a waste of love? (104) –Lara
> Wright explores marriage and monogamy in a Darwinian context and makes the argument that the
type of serial monogamy that's a part of Western culture today has come about as people have begun a
trend towards marrying for love rather than for evolutionary reasons (resources, fitness of the genes of
potential mate, etc). I agree that as the our society no longer operates on a basic subsistence level,
women no longer need to pick a husband based on economic reasons but that doesn't mean that the
evolutionary basis for marriage, mating, and monogamy is not still very much alive and well...I elaborate
on this in my presentation for Tuesday. –Angela // Wright believes, in a stratified society whose women
want to maximize the resources available to her children and whose men want to maximize the number
of opportunities to produce children, that polygamy is in favor of females even more so than of males. Is
Wright's approach to relationships and marriages strictly a biological viewpoint? Is the ultimate goal of
"love" and legal marriage really to produce the best fit offsprings, and that's it? (Pg. 98) -Annie (Hye Yon)
Cho // -If polygyny were legal in our modern society, would men have multiple wives or would other
factors such as various common religions, traditions and beliefs keep most men in a monogamous
relationship? Kara
> Wright finds that "inequality among males is more socially destructive...than inequality among
women" (101). His evidence includes the ancestrial history of humans (of animals really) stating that
"natural selection has inclined them to compete with special ferocity" (100). Yet that is only because
men have consistently dominated throughout human history. Especially with the growing equality of
women, is it possible that inequality of women could be just as, if not more, socially destructive. Zackery
//"The costs of losing the contest are so high (genetic oblivion) that natural selection has inclined them
to compete with special ferocity." - pg 100. Could rape then be rationalized as a way to spread genes to
beat sexual competition? -Jody // Are men by nature really more socially destructive than women? Or
does it seem this way because there is a cultural stigma that allows men to be more outwardly agressive
than females and the females are equally aggressive but in less obvious/physical ways? –Holly
P102 Difficulties with step-parenting: Divorce, Adoption, Child Welfare
"Whenever marital institution - in either kind of society - are allowed to dissolve, so that divorce and
unwed motherhood are rampant, and many children no longer live with both of their natural parents,
there will ensue a massive waste of the most precious evolutionary resource; love." pg 104.- On the
other hand, forcing parent who don't want to stay together to do so could have even more negative
effects on their offspring. Being raised in an environment where the parents do not get along can in
many ways be worse than only having one parent or seeing them separately. Though a step parent may
very well not treat an adopted child as well as it would it's own, such an environment may be more
beneficial, or rather, less harmful than the former where a child must witness conflicts between the two
most important people in it's life.- Ronald //Do studies suggesting that "substitute parents will generally
tend to care less profoundly for children than natural parents" decrease the rate of adoption? how does
it affect who is qualified or how many children get adopted? (pg 103) - Jessica Piedra
Constitution vs Maturation
In the Moral Animal, the heritability of personality traits is purported to be approximately .4 (40%).
However, there is also an emphasis placed on malleability in those personality traits, in the ability of an
individual to adapt to the situation to find the most evolutionarily advantageous outcome, regardless of
the (personality) traits they were born with. Is it possible for a person to be born with, lets say,
"introverted genes", and throughout the course of their life, find that extroverts have an advantage,
therefore becoming extroverted themself via the malleability mentioned in the text? In this case,
although his genotype remains the same, his phenotype has changed completely, and no longer reflects
the genes he possesses in any understandable way. Why then, is there any emphasis placed on the
heritability of personality when it seems difficult to be certain to what extent, if at all, these inherited
traits mold an individual? –Evan // Wright says "many of our impulses are, by design, very strong, so any
force that is to stifle them may have to be pretty harsh" (p 151). He does not seem to give much credit
to the influence of experience. I don't believe that stifling our impulses is as difficult as Wright makes it
out to be. Our nature (genes) may prepare us for an ancient environment where males want to spread
their seed as much as possible, but our nurture prepares us for the modern environment, where, at
least in monogamous cultures, cheating on one's spouse is considered immoral. While we are
genetically inclined to have a desire to procreate, is our nurture really that much weaker? Aren't we
then just victims of our genes? –Julia //"So in the ancestral environment, a self-esteem that began to
harden shortly after adolescence may have been a reliable guide to one's enduring value on the
marriage market; maybe it has become a faulty indicator only in a more modern environment" (Pg118)
This implies that the practice of self-esteem that hardens in adolescence is only applicable in older times
when upward mobility was not common. However, even in today's society this concept seems to apply,
especially if we take a look at poorer areas. If this is truly the case, then in which class (middle-class,
lower-class, poverty, upper-class) can we say that this concept really is only a "faulty indicator in a
modern environment?" -Andrea // Wright says "many of our impulses are, by design, very strong, so
any force that is to stifle them may have to be pretty harsh" (p 151). He does not seem to give much
credit to the influence of experience. I don't believe that stifling our impulses is as difficult as Wright
makes it out to be. Our nature (genes) may prepare us for an ancient environment where males want to
spread their seed as much as possible, but our nurture prepares us for the modern environment, where,
at least in monogamous cultures, cheating on one's spouse is considered immoral. While we are
genetically inclined to have a desire to procreate, is our nurture really that much weaker? Aren't we
then just victims of our genes? –Julia
I love the point he makes: "But again: emotions are just evolutions executioners." But being one who
has a strong belief in free will, I would be interested to hear the classes opinions on the subject. -Alec
1) I don't understand why there is only an explanation as to why polygamy only benefits the woman by
allowing her to share a wealthy husband with another woman. Why is there no explanation as to how a
woman with many husbands could be beneficial? If a woman were sleeping with many husband, there
was more chance for her to be "exposed" to potent sperm. Furthermore, there would be doubt as to
who the father was which could arguably lead all men to provide the child with resources. (p.96-98)
2) Wright makes the argument that couples who sleep together without the creation of offspring
typically move on (p. 124). However, some statistics show that marital satisfaction decreases with the
presence of children. How would Wright respond to the fact that many couples without children stay
together and the fact that children can lesson the satisfaction felt during marriage?
3) According to Wright, men will act in a way to benefit their genetic investment. However, there is
discussion that divorce benefits the man financially as he is typically not required to pay much and, even
if required, is not enforced in doing so (p. 136). Wouldn't this be somewhat contradictory? Shouldn't
the husband feel obligated to financially support his offspring according to Wright's argument?
4) If women give in to the forward men early and are therefore classified as "whores" and not married,
why would the cycle continue? Wouldn't the women that were more reserved and, therefore, married
and procreated with have more children and result in more people with sexually reserved dispositions? Theresa Mejia
Chapter 6: Darwin’s plan for marital bliss
P130 Rational considerations for marriage
P133 Divorce
P135 The case for equal/different treatment of men, women: alimony, etc.
P142 I the Madonna/whore dichotomy inherent in the male psyche, or just the Victorian one?
P146 Where do moral codes come from?
Wright references, on page 132, the modern philosopher John Stewart Mill, whose basic principles of
utilitarianism dictate that the major goal of human life is to increase one's pleasure and decrease one's
pain, which could have proved selectively advantageous and been genetically preserved. In a modern
world, however, we are less concerned with physical survival, and so this self-interest has been
redirected toward financial gain, fostering a measure of greed in society. -Tyler Vasconcellos
In the last paragraph of the reading, Wright brings up that George Williams "may be going to far when
he says that natural selection is 'evil' " (151). How would you support Williams' statement? Is the very
thing, at least in theory, that formed who we are today "evil" ? What does that mean for human kind? –
Megan
From chapter 4, page 102 says how "Darwinism can and can't legitimately enter moral discourse." I
believe the author says it is for us to decide what is moral in the following sentences but I want to know
the limits of morality according to Darwinism. –Stephanie
Throughout the Chapter Wright mentions the benefits that financial and social standing can bring to
attract the opposite sex, However other than bringing up the idea of child-care difference between an
adoptive parents and a biological parent (pg. 103); Wright fails to address the physical attraction and
what that means in the case of "Survival of the Fittest"- Abi
If Monogamy is out native instinctual way of courting, why is it that a single woman can be attracted to
a man who is taken? Nam Joo (Johnny) Kim
John Stuart Milll´s adive to the unhappy is to ¨sit still until the feeling passes¨(p.31). Could this be seen
as settling instead? Maybe the divorce rate is so high because people don´t take the time to really know
one another before marriage and then this feeling of unhappiness comes around later. If this is thrue
then, the unhappiness will probably not pass. –Holly
If the theory for why monogamy exists is based on the hunter gatherer societies in which men could not
provide for two families and woman would not settle for a man who is already allocating his resources
to another family then what explains affairs? Is it a malfunction in us (pg 94) If this theory is in deed
factual then shouldn't polygyny only exist when people enter into relationships with someone in a
higher class than their current partner? Wright points out that males are more violent creatures than
females possibly due to having to compete for scarce sexual resources (pg 100). Then are polygyny
levels higher among criminals? - Samantha
The human phallogocentrism (the privileging of the masculine) proves that evolutionary psychology is
real? It is visible that around the world everything privileges men or the masculine. We construct
obelisks as monuments, still men have higher salaries than women for the same kind of job, lastly there
are more male Presidents in democratic countries than females. If the female is an expensive
commodity because of its gametes and the male is more violent and primitive why is the world so
masculine? - Cristiane
************ Thurs Oct 6 Oct 6
Families and friends: Wright, Chapters 7-9 (pages 155-209)
G:\DONS\teaching\141\Altruism.docx
Valuing youth vs age p. 174-175...When talking about death and grief, Wright suggests that death of a
person around adolescence produces more grief than death of an older or younger person (60 yrs. old
and 1 yr. old for example). Does this asymmetry in the amount of grief hold true for all cultures around
the world? If not, what reasons could there be for the difference? - Russ // "Though there seems to be
no good Darwinian reason to spend time and energy on an old, dying father, few of us would, or could,
turn our backs. The stubborn core of familial love persists beyond its evolutionary usefulness" (p 176).
What is the purpose of this evolutionarily and culturally? Culturally, is it because you want your kids to
do the same for you? You see your parents taking care of their parents and perhaps learn to do the
same. When your parents get old, you take care of them while simultaneously teaching your children
that it's morally and socially right to do that. –Julia // What's the point of having children if I have no one
to take care of me in my old age? My genes are not so amazing that the need to pass them on is
consciously overwhelming. I want children more for the selfish and social aspect of them versus the
evolutionary aspect-I may even adopt. Totally would not go through the pain and cost of bearing
children if there was a way to know they'd desert me. I mainly would like to have the experience of
creating a family and pass on my values and traditions and just see what it's like to create life and
hopefully be surrounded by love in death. Humans need love and I think that's a big reason of kin and
reciprocal altruism (p.208) –Angela
Could the reason for a lady to be emotional during her period be due to the loss of her potential kin?
Possible evolution of hormone functioning in a lady? P.174 -Johnny
Kin selection and altruism
Is it truly considered altruism if one does an action with the motive to further one´s family genes even if
the motive may be unconscious? (the chapter on families) -Holly
Wright explains that altruism, or kin selection, exists because the chances of the gene, whether in the
sacrificed individual or in the relatives of that individual, have a better chance of surviving. However,
wouldn't a selfish gene, as Wright discusses later (pg 187) serve as a guaranteed way to push an
individual's gene?? For example, instead of a squirrel giving a warning call to further his kin's (therefore
his genes), wouldnt a guaranteed and less complicated way be to just run away himself, thus ensuring
that his gene would be passed on? –Andrea // Though evolutionary math is a great oversimplification,
if, as Wright says. "when r (degree of relatedness) isn't 1, altruism isn't ultimate," can we ever love
anyone else as much as we love ourselves (165)? Is it even in our best interest to outside of cooperation,
or TIT FOR TAT behavior (196)? -Tyler
Wright talks about Hamilton's theory of "brotherly love" or in other words altruism towards our kin.
However, I feel our society today it is more common to see sibling rivalry, is this a social creation or
could it have a genetic basis as Hamilton said sibling love did. -pg 165 -Samantha
P. 185 "...That however special we may consider out species, we are not unique in our capacity for
sympathetic behavior, even beyond the confines of family" Are we able to determine if all species are or
are not capable of sympathetic behavior? It is obvious with certain animals through observation but
what about other species where this behavior is not observable? -Kara
Reciprocal kindness (which may not represent altruism in the narrow sense): Wright explains that
altruism beyond barriers is achieved because kindness is repayed by kindness (pg 190). However, why
would the individual to first start altruism beyond barriers begin to be kind to those that are not his kin,
especially since they would not know that they would be repayed. Further more, it has been seen that
people with a close relationship with dogs have died for them or vice versa. How can this be explained,
especially since dying for someone means no more repayed kindess for either individual? –Zackery //
"The ideal neighbor for TIT FOR TAT, after all, is another TIT FOR TAT. The two settle quickly and
painlessly into an enduringly fruitful relationship" (Wright 199). Why, then, did humans not evolve to all
be TIT FOR TAT? –Megan // I don't fully understand the concept of "tit for tat" (p. 197-202). Younger
children seem to exploit others at any chance possible until taught by parents, society, and even religion
doctrines teach them not to. If "tit for tat" is in fact genetically based through evolution as Wright
argues, why is it necessary to teach it to children? -Theresa // What would the outcome look like to
apply the "TIT for TAT" theory (pg.197) to marriage/partner finder rather than just friendships. Would
the outcome look different than that of Wright's Social Climbing/offspring survival theory? -Abi
Genes for conforming to a moral code? I do not believe we are all born with a set of moral codes but
rather that we all carry genes that regulate actions and behaviors such as being social or antisocial which
together all compile a moral code. -pg 183 –Samantha /// If Darwin were to be placed in a typical
college environment, how do you think he would view college students? Being that the "typical college
student," drinks, is promiscuous, ect., would he see the things they do as immoral or simply part of the
environment? (ch 8) –Jessica /// In chapter 8, Wright talks about morality genes. He says that different
cultures "judge different norms to be in the interest of the community" (pg. 184). He also says on the
same page that a "breach of norms can cause a man 'agony,' and the violation of some trivial bit of
etiquette, when recalled even years after, can bring back a 'burning sense of shame.'" My observation
after reading this is that if negative emotions are what determine morality, then what is moral today can
change tomorrow. –Stephanie // Wright discusses the conscience as a method to employ altruism and
enforce it. Is it possible that other animals where kin selection and altruism are important in the species
(wolves, ants, or squirrels for example) have developed a conscience? Or is there another prerequisite
to developing a conscience? -Zackery Bertrand
Status and Gender: How does the custom of males carrying on their family name tie into Wright's
argument that high-status families treat their son's better than their daughters? –Ronald
Gossip: Wright strongly believes the the spread of gossip among friends is one of the main reasons why
we evolves to have them (pg 195.) We learn from their knowledge and expertise and just by normal
interaction extract information that may be useful to us later in life. Why then do you think that society
discourages and frowns upon the spread of gossip? Nobody wants others to judge them or perceive
them in a negative light, but we can learn from their successes or failures. –Lara // If "trading gossip" is
why "friendship exists" (p 195) why is the act of gossiping seen as such a bad thing? Masha
Oct 11 Darwin and Social Status: Wright, Chapters 10-12 (pages 210-262)
On page 215, Wright says "there have been times during evolution when being nice to people wasn't the
genetically optimal strategy. We may all have the machinery of TIT FOR TAT, but we also have less
admirable machinery." There are many times when being nice to people is not the optimal strategy but
my question is how does this fact create a separate "machinery" that conflicts with the other? Stephanie
p.216 Since parents are ¨designed to steer kids toward moral behavior¨what is the explanation for
parents who are drug addicted and criminals? Does natural selection makes those parents less likely to
further their genes or is it a purely cultural phenomenon? –Holly
Social status was said to be positively correlated to social status in modern society as well as more
traditional hierarchtical ones. While there is variation in the way some cultures regard high social
standing (i.e. the Zuni's merit based system) would a more subtle form of status also correlate with
elevated seretonin levels? or would the declined pugnacity effectively banish this effect? -Jeremy
If Wright argues that pain in the form of depression from an overbearing conscience is a sound
adaption, then are people on antidepressants less fit? -pg 211
Beginning on page 222, Wright says that "cultural influence can be just as unconscious as genetic
influence", and suggests that even in societies that are "equal" there still exists hierarchies or power.
How does this relate to Wright's argument of a moral society on an evolutionary standpoint? -Sylvia
If, as Wright points out, social hierarchy evolved in order to maximize efficiency (p. 240), and, while
toughness plays an important part in such a pecking order, it is not the absolute measure of position (p.
241), then if we approach the concept from a species-based evolutionary perspective, would we find
that the highest "ranked" individual exemplifies the characteristics most needed by his/her social
surroundings? For example, in wartime, a leader would be a warrior or tactician, but in peace, a leader
would tend to be a diplomat or scientist. Are we wired to socially value characteristics that benefit our
current and future societal needs, and ensure that such characteristics get passed on through the
increased offspring afforded an individual on top of the social "ladder"? -Evan Adams
The social hierarchy is a representation of strength and fitness in the human environment, however if
this is the case then why are nerds and geeks placed below the norm? Also, if fitness in our society
emphasizes mental strength and cleverness, then why are atheletes looked upon with higher status? Andrea // If when we "put a group of children together, [and] they fall into distinct grades" based on
status (which are reflections of individual fitness to the environment), why is it so often the smart or
exceptional child (possessing superior fitness) that is the victim of bullying or ridicule? If we accept that
this is because of jealousy, then what adaptive purpose does/may jealousy have for the individual?
(page 241) -Tyler
Is there a relationship between serotonin levels and hierarchy in the society? If so, people that born rich
will pass to their offspring genes that will be more prone to produce high levels of serotonin and
therefore it is correct to say that the rich will always get richer and the poor will always be poor? (page
243). Cristiane
"Female social coalitions - friendships - often last a lifetime, whereas male coalitions shift with strategic
utility" (246). I disagree with this statement and I do not think that females have evolved to have
lifetime friendships, at least any more so than males. Do you agree or disagree with Wright's statement?
-Megan
Why do females compete for male parental investment now and not in our evolutionary past? It seems
that Darwin relates it mainly to status. Is it possible that as women gain equality that the tables will turn
and men will no longer compete as women become less choosy and more showy? (p.246) –Angela
"For females, the reproductive stakes of the status game are lower. A female chimp in ovulation,
regardless of her status, faces no shortage of suitors. She is not fundamentally in sexual competition
with other females." -pg 246. This may be true in chimps but I think that that status plays a larger role in
human females. I think that in modern day America, women, in general, are affected by the media and
culture to fit an ideal; This "ideal" is representative of status and essentially competition. I think that
status is just as important to women as it is to men. What I got out of this was that women have an
easier time finding a mate while men have a harder time...which I don't think is true. –Jody
"... 'cheating' is an adaptive response, triggered when people are shunted to the bottom of the heap and
thus find it hard to get resources legitimately." (p. 244) - How does this explain rich and powerful CEOs
that cheat and steal from their own company? They are at the top of the heap and are definitely not
lacking resources. // "How flexible is society about what it finds pleasing?" (p. 261) - I believe that
society is constantly changing what it finds "pleasing" - but that the constant change is so slow relative
to our life spans that it is hard for us to recognize. -Kayla
In Wrights discussion of social status he states that some female bonobos become the "unquestioned
leader" (p.248-249). Is this comparable to the new(er) role of executive women in society today? –
Theresa
Professor here is a video that i had been thinking of when talking about human evolution and survival of
the fittest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU
On Pg. 248 and 249, Wright argues that both male and females (Chimps andhumans) achieve alpha
status by the type of benefit that one can bring to their offspring. How would Wright account for the
various "lesbian/gay" Chiefs that exist in different native tribes?- Abi
Are criminals more genetically prone to lie and cheat or are they wired with the same conscience and
just influenced by their kin and environment? -pg 218 Doesn't status hierarchy go against reciprocal
altruism, so how then could both be selected for? -pg 257 -Samantha
Oct 13
Self-Deception: Wright, Chapters 13-14 (pages 263-310)
What exactly is meant by saying that we deceive ourselves? Does this idea require us to postulate a
Freudian unconscious? P264 -Don
Wright says on page 267 that "cognitive psychologists have shown how the details of a story, even if
false, embed themselves in the original memory with repetition." Our memory loses its accuracy over
time. We don't usually remember things the way they actually happened. What purpose does or did
this serve for humans (why did it evolve?). -Stephanie
"... a woman may find herself unwittingly "building her husband's self-confidence by providing a
standard of lower competence", (270). Is this an unconscious behavior or self-deceptive? Cristiane
It seems that Wright distinguishes between deception which refers to situational manipulation for some
advantage that is beneficial for survival, mating, etc. versus dishonesty which is a behavioral mechanism
that is not necessarily selected for and thus in today's society and the future may or may not have an
evolutionary advantage (p 273). So why do 'we' lie? -Angela
Reading Wright's chapter on deception and self-deception has made me curious as to whether people
who are pathological liars have legitimate psychological conditions and if so are their minds actually
deceiving themselves? -pg 267 Wright's concept of self-deflation seems to go against the popular saying
to dream big and set your goals high. Because if one has a low self-esteem they are going to picture
themselves accomplishing their goals. -pg 270 I argue that when you love someone you are deceiving
yourself because you subconsciously do not see all the persons flaws. -pg 283 -Samantha
If it is in a person's "genetic interest not only to accept low status, but, in at least some circumstances,
to convey their acceptance of it -- to behave submissively..." then are we affecting the social hierarchy
by giving these people medication to, in a sense, boost their self-esteem? How, if at all, could this affect
society as a whole? (pg 270) ---Jessica
What effect, if any, do you think social media could have on deception/self deception (especially p.268271). Could it be used as a method to "show off" to a larger audience even if the person resides in a
small town? Or does it cause someone to be more honest as people that know them can call them out
on any discrepancies? –Theresa
I feel Wright was too optimistic in the way he wrote of "mild depression" and how "this mood may goad
them into a fruitful shift of course" (pg 271). There may be times when the positivity of "changing
careers, jettisoning ungrateful friends, abandoning the pursuit of an elusive mate" can be attributed to
such a condition. But I think depression should mainly be credited for things like the initial loss of a
career or the failure to pursue a mate after abandoning the pursuit of the elusive one. Credit was unduly
given to depression for the positive possibilities of depression while the broader negative side was
ignored. Yes, it depends on the severity/length of the depression. But it sounds too convenient for
Wright to simply decide depression arose favorably for those reasons. Nevertheless, this descent of selfesteem from certain circumstances may have been advantageous during the Pleistocene for different
reasons. Perhaps people in tribes/bands offered more attention /care to those who seemed down.
Maybe back then it was a more successful call for help? -Shaheen
Since it takes a truly "Herculean effort to control [the] tendency" to deride our rivals and minimize their
accomplishments, in public or internally, how is sportmanship possible(269)? In its ideal form, it seems
not to be, and so any attempt at it cannot be truly honest, and, if we believe we are capable of
sportsmanship, we are simply deceiving ourselves; our brain, the "good lawyer," is convincing us we are
ideally virtuous when we aren't, and perhaps needn't be (280). –Tyler
From the discussion of arguments (p. 280-281). At what point do we as a species tend to diverge from
expressing our own opinion on a subject and turn to making attacks against the other's ideas? At what
point do we become negative, and is it in response to a realization that our facts are unable to counter
the facts of our opponent? -Evan
I disagree with this statement as a universal fact. Instead, wouldn't the most fortified friendships often
be those based on honesty. This would involve a relationship between close friends which revolves
around a mutual respect for the truth, or a "collective truth". I personally admire and feel closet to
friends that are supportive yet present me with the truth regardless of the situation. Collective
dishonesty would therefore lead to more "fake" relationships or friendships. –Kara
p. 283 ¨Being a person´s true friend means endorsing the untruths he holds dearest.¨ Is it really that a
true friend holds the untruths dearest or that a true friend calls his/her friend out on their untruths and
therefore helps the person improve on themselves so that they can become closer and better friends in
the long-run? –Holly // On page 283, Wright says: "the hallmark of the strongest, longest friendships is
the depth of the shared bias; the best friends are the ones who see each other least clearly." However, I
feel that the strongest friendships arise from knowing a person very deeply and sticking up for them
anyways. If you know a person at this level, then you can understand their goals and intentions even
when poor judgement clouds their own vision. You also understand their logic and reasoning and
respect their decisions. –Lara // I disagree with this statement as a universal fact. Instead, wouldn't the
most fortified friendships often be those based on honesty. This would involve a relationship between
close friends which revolves around a mutual respect for the truth, or a "collective truth". I personally
admire and feel closet to friends that are supportive yet present me with the truth regardless of the
situation. Collective dishonesty would therefore lead to more "fake" relationships or friendships. –Kara
How does the section of Darwin's Triumph relate or back up the ideas that wright brings up in the
previous pages? I feel that when wright was talking about depression and its benefits for man kind (pg.
266) and reciprocal altruistic relationships (pg 282);his theories are not necessarily backed up with the
examples of Darwin's life. - Abi
- Judging from the things that Darwin said to people, it seems that the degree of flattery he used to
climb the social ladder might not be received quite as well in today's world. Is it a cultural difference that
we today might perceive a persons intentions differently? Is culture capable of blinding us, or directing
us to perceive things in a certain way? –Ronald
http://creationthemovie.com/
Oct 18 Evolutionary Ethics: Wright, Chapters 15-16 (pages 313-344)
pg 315[oedipus complex as vying for mother's attention] If the Oedipus complex is understood as
offputting a mothers continued reproduction wouldn't it become somewhat unproductive at a kin
selection point of view if it would significantly offset a significant amount of other offspring being
reproducded (siblings being a 1/2 copy of genes, thus at least 2 siblings equaling yourself in a egocentric
point of view)? –Jeremy
On pg.316 when Wright questions "Where did these distinctive tunings come from?" when refering to
Darwin's need for social acceptance, wouldnt it be possible for him to simply say that this was a genetic
need that benefits him among the rest of the population? -Abi
"People may be well designed to absorb painful guidance that conduces to genetic proliferation (or
would have in the ancestral environment)" (p.317). I found the discussion of pain to be interesting,
especially the piece regarding pain influencing genetic evolution. At the same time, pain may sometimes
have nothing to do with genetics or evolving and may at times be present to teach us individual
lessons opposed to evolving our species in general. –Kara // Wright says that Freud and other
psychologists had this idea that "pain is a symptom of something abnormal, unnatural - a sign that
things have gone awry." On the other hand, another evolutionary psychologist argues that pain is part of
natural selection's design (pg 317). So you think that these two ideas contradict or support each other?
–Megan // If pain is evolutionarily advantageous then why do many of us go throug denial? -pg 320 –
Samantha
Possible causes for insecurity,"....rejection on the grade-school playground, romantic failures in
adolescence, an unstable home, the death of a family member, moving around too often. And,
"...degree and nature of parental love, the numbers of parents in the household, early romantic
encounters, dynamics with siblings, friends, enemies..." (319). Seems that everyone once in their life
time went through one or more of these situations cited, but what makes a person being more or less
self confident? -Cristiane //
On page 322, Wright says that we may repress friends' transgressions in order to protect our (or
because of their) status. Does anyone find this idea too far fetched? A lot of wrights ideas to me are a bit
extreme, but in this chapter I feel like his ideas are extremely contrived. Perhaps there are some things
that we do that are perhaps for evolutionarily based reasons, but perhaps we forgive friends for the
simple fact that they are our friends. -sylvea
Wright argues that the way people commonly think about the relationship of thoughts and feelings and
the pursuit of goals is backwards. He contends that our genetic interests dictate what we think and feel
(p 324-325). In contemplating this assertion, I could think of as many subjective genetic reasons why a
behavior or moral inclination would exist as objective non-genetic reasons why something would be
immoral so I don't know if I can agree with Wright in such a sweeping manner. -Angela
When Wright discusses utilitarianism (pg. 332-334), he seems to present the facts as though each
individual was concerned with the over happiness of the group (species) as a whole, rather than his own
individual utility. Maybe it's because I'm an economics major, but it seems to me that a more sensible
way to present the argument is that each individual is concerned with his or her personal happiness; and
personal happiness has a component that contains group happiness. In this model, seeking happiness
for the self involves seeking happiness for the group, but not as a priority over one's own happiness.
This would seem to dovetail nicely with the Darwinian thought we had discussed previously. – Evan
//What happens if someones general happiness negates the "general good or welfare of the
community"? For example, what if it makes someone really happy to murder people? Isn't that
something that is considered bad, but it's good for that person? How does that work with utilitarianism?
(p 332) -Masha
I don't fully understand the social response to Darwin. Society took evolution to be a "threat" to morals
(p. 329). They took it to mean that the moral "goods" in the world were just a product of evolution, so
they shouldn't be followed. Yet, almost in the same breath, they adopted an animalistic society in which
they went back to their pure instincts and ignored the common good. The other options outlined by
Spencer and Mill make more sense, why were they ignored? Especially after Darwin, the man who
understood evolution best, supported them. Why was society inconsistent (p. 344)? –Theresa // Wright
says that morals have fallen with the knowledge of evolution and Darwinism. But has it? There is more
equality among races, social institutions helping the poor, etc. While our sexual and religious morals
have waned, haven't others strengthened? (p 328) -Zackery
Wright states, "We are built to be effective animals, not happy ones...the frequent absence of happiness
is what keeps us pursuing it, and thus makes us productive" (Pg. 298). He is demonstrating the 'nature'
of our existence as subject to the passing of our genes (if we want to be successful under genetic terms).
But he later professes that he is a utilitarian and that in order to treat others with just as much respect
as one's self by reject the laws of nature we must know our "enemy", stating, :We are potentially moral
animals--which is more than any other animal can say--but we aren't naturally moral animals. to be
moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't" (Pg. 344). If we abandon the 'forces' of
nature that incline us to behave selfishly and help our neighbors be as 'fit' as the next, would we be
preventing a successful process of natural selection? –Annie // How does Darwin explain reproductive
health of those who only, or mostly, care about their own happiness? Wouldn't this interfere with their
survival? (consider hunter-gatherer societies) Even if it is essential to our survival to worry for our own
happiness and that of our community, how is the "balance" explained? (pg 343) - Jessica
p. 341 Wright argues ¨love actually makes this sacrifice feel good, thus magnifying total happiness...¨
and then states that a mother´s maternal love is what caused her to murder the mother of her
daughter´s rival for cheer leading. First, based off of Wright´s previous arguments, I didn´t think he
believed love really existed and that it was more of a combination of genes and situation so how could
he now support this statement? Second, is that really the love of the mother that causes her to murder
or is it an underlying condition of psychosis mixed with her desire for her daughter to succeed? -Holly
Would utilitarianism work as a nation or worldwide value? What kind of government could support
utilitarian values? Utilitarianism aims to put all people at the same status level, suggesting a socialist or
communist government, however Wright spent a great deal of time in the previous chapters discussing
the extreme importance of status in society. Could humans accept equal rights, privileges etc.? Is it even
possible to achieve equality on such a massive scale? -Lara
Do you think that ugly and non-popular people have an evolutionary advantage compared to beautiful
and popular people? Since, "ugly and non-popular people have nothing handed to them they must earn
what they seek and will thus develop character, while beautiful and popular people will have no
redeeming character when their looks begin to fade". –Johnny
On page 325, Wright makes a passing reference to the growing trend toward media's self-awareness
and widespread cynicism in society - a trend that, soon after this book's publication in 1994, would
become reality television. How does reality television relate to what Wright says on page 344 about our
growing "technical capacity for leading a truly examined life?" -Tyler
Oct 20
Determinism and Responsibility: Wright, Chapters 17-18 (pages 345-379; concludes Wright)
-Wright says much about human nature being incompatible with a society of brotherly love (pg. 346),
but according to behaviorism research, positive reinforcement (rewarding good behavior) is more
effective than negative reinforcement (punishing bad behavior). Why then, have we developed and
continue to use systems of justice based on fear and punishment? –Ronald
In the closing of the book, Wright touches on religion which I think was done purposefully and I find
highly ironic since religious figures and devotees are some of the biggest opponents of evolution. From
my understanding Darwin by proxy of Wright, does not deny the existence of God or espouse that
people should not follow anything in the Bible as I always thought. On pages 364-70, there are actually
connections between tenets of the Bible (the Ten Commandments) and how they support natural
selection...and also how they don't. –Angela
"Darwin shared this hope. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "As man advances in civilization, and small
tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought
to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally
unknown to him."" (p.372). Based on the above statement, is this point of ultimate selflessness even
possible? Especially after reading that in terms of reciprocal altruism, we always,
whether unconsciously or consciously, tend to favor the result that benefits ourselves more. And is this
possible to act to such a selflessness extent towards individuals that are complete strangers to us? –Kara
// "Love your enemies" is a good example of morality not being evolutionary sound. -pg 347 –Samantha
 John Hartung on tribal morality: http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=13
"He saw that all behavior must therefore boil down to heredity and environment. '[O]ne doubts
existence of free will,' he wrote in his notebooks, because 'every action determined by heredetary [sic]
constitution, example of others or teaching of others.' "pg 349 Is he saying that there is no such thing as
subjective thought?-Jody // Wright alludes to the fact that there is no "free will" (p. 349-353). His
argument seems to be that since all of our behavior is influenced by genes and environment, there is no
third aspect that can be involved (348). Would Wright then make the claim that, given an individuals
genetic make up and environmental factors one could, potentially, predict what the person would do in
given situations? It seems as if Wright tries to argue that there is no third influence but isn't
thought/insight something to consider? –Theresa // Does Darwin's claim that there is no such thing as
free will imply that there is no such thing as indecisiveness? -pg 352 -Samantha
According to utilitarian logic one should not be blamed unless there is a resulting benefit to society.
Wright mentions an anthropologist on page 357 who states that those who justify divorce by thinking
it's inevitable are wrong, you can resist successfully, and that those who feel they are failures for having
one or multiple failed marriages are also a part of the norms of human behavior. However, what is more
beneficial to society, the happiness or sanity of two adults who choose divorce, or would that be a wast
of the love, time and effort they put into their relationship? –Lara //What a beautiful idea, Mill argues
for! Hedonistic values deserving no punishment as long as it didnt inflict pain on anyone. (362) However
jsut to play devil's advocate, is this possible? can't we argue that almost anything comes at a cost of
another? –sylvea //Is the utilitarian optimization realizable? "Raw selfishness" (pg 373), cloaked or not,
will take control (or at least have great influence), thereby disallowing the maximization of the
happiness for all, and instead giving us results similar to today-- where happiness of few can deny that of
many. --Shaheen
Wright seems to espouse the idea of religion as a product of evolution. ( pg. 365) Then, he points out
that religion often asks devotees to suppress instinctual desires, branding them as "demons" (pg. 367).
These desires must also exist for an evolutionary purpose, so why then does, in this case, evolution
seem to be working against itself? –Evan // On page 366 Wright said that probably ".... common
religious teaching have some sort of timeless values as rules to live by..." Our gather and hunter
ancestors that believed in God or in something mystical had more probability to survive (and procreate)
- with that faith they would feel more protected and thus they were more prone to expose themselves
to hunt big animals or to move to different locations. But nowadays we live in a world where the believe
in something else for protection is not necessary. Why then, do religious believes still growing very
strongly and in many ways with fundamentalist voice? – Cristiane
"we are designed to feel that the next great oal will bring bliss, and the bliss is designed to evaporate
shortly after we get there." (p 369) Wright frequently mentions how happiness was never part of natural
selection's "plot" but this statement makes it sound like we're designed, to be forever miserable. can
that really be the case? -Masha // I understand that he is referring mostly to addiction but how does
this apply to human nature in general. Does that mean that those who are not ambitious or inclined to
climb another ladder of pleasure are missing something or have been deprived of this part of human
nature? How can this apply to those with mental disorders who are not inclined to seek pleasure? (pg
369)- Jessica //On page 368, Write says that "there is indeed a force devoted to enticing us into various
pleasures that are (or once were) in our genetic interests but do not bring long-term happiness to us and
may bring great suffering to others." I don't understand why evolution does not "care" about human
happiness. Aren't we more successful in life if we are happy? -Stephanie
Assorted topics:
In relation to the discussion of religion, should we really try to have ¨Darwin-like behavior¨for our own
pride if Wright is suggesting that there is nothing after death but relief from earthly grievances? Does it
really matter then if our species continues if we are simply momentary parts of the universe and will
cease to exist? –Holly
According to Wright, one of the possibilities for religion and morals developing is to control the masses
and gain power. A prime example Wright uses is Moses and the Ten Commandment. However, in the
story of Moses, he never wanted to become a leader of the people because he felt he lacked the ability
to do so. Could this be a type of self-denial that ends up genetically beneficial? –Zackery
The notion of parasitic ideas, those that "parasitize brains," that spread, virus-like, from human to
human and can be either beneficial or deleterious, reminds me of the concept of "memes" and a TED
talk I once saw (366). This could be the key to an analogy between biological and cultural or intellectual
evolution. -Tyler
 This video, which hints at evolutionary psychology, on memes and "temes" might be of interest
to you, Professor: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html
Oct 25
Workman and Reader Chapter 1: Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology
Emotionally and socially I can understand why it would be a bad policy to implement because of the
effects it would have on our current generations, but in our modern age, with our medical and social
advantages perpetuating genes for propensity for cancer, obesity, and other diseases, it just seems to
make logical sense to make an emotionally detached decision to implement eugenics (assuming you
allow for an advantageous amount of diversity to exist in the population). Right? –Tyler
On page 11, Workman talks about eugenics which "....was developed as a method of trying to dictate
who breeds with whom and, in extreme cases, who doesn't breed at all". Is this might be considered a
form of group altruism? One example of group altruism are the bees and ants which the workers cannot
have offsprings, they have to work for the sake of the hive and only the queen is allowed to procreate. Cristiane
Evolutionary psychology is reductionist- I agree that the tenets and overall theory of natural selection
are simple and logically deducible but in some applications, evolutionary psychology can be very
complicated. The example the book gives is about depression and how reductionism tries to give the
plainest explanations however some things like depression are very complicated and seeking to reduce
or explain them too simplistically may be more detrimental than helpful. –Angela
The book seems to claim that the SSSM model is completely incompatible with the current Darwinian
perspective, and points out 5 specific assumptions as proof of this fault. To what extent is the book
correct? Yes, the "blank slate" approach is incorrect, especially considering the new paradigm, but the
assumptions centered on human behavior seem much more reasonable. -Evan
In the five principles that outline evolutionary psychology (page 22) Principle 4 states that "different
neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems." I do not doubt that this is true,
but am curious as to how evolutionary psychologists explain the malleability of the brain, for example
considering people with massive portions of their brains absent due to deformity or injury that are still
able to retain high and/or normal functioning. –Lara
The idea of modularity made me contemplate the contrasting theories of mind over matter and matter
over mind. Do we experience pain and then perceive it or do we first have to consciously experience the
pain in order to feel it? -pg 22 -Samantha
Is there a behavior that exists that does not boil down to sex, reproduction, or survival and essentially
natural selection? - Jody Mak
For purely controversial conversation, do you think our society would improve if we implemented a
mandatory IQ test before allowing couples to have children? And not just an IQ test, but maybe some
kind of ... "common sense" test or something... If, by our longevity, and our ideals of "free sexual"
choice we have "curtailed" the effectiveness of natural selection, perhaps the only way to rebound from
this IS selective breeding? -Masha
Workman and Reader Chapter 2: Mechanisms of Evolutionary Change
pg 26 If music was not initially an adaptation but an offshoot of language as posited by Steven Pinker,
could music have become adaptation at some point during human evolution if especially talented
musician tend to find reproductive success? (spandrel becoming adaptive) Jeremy
Pages 40-41 discuss the evolution of humans, stating that we diverged from monkeys. What sort of
environmental pressures would have caused a branching evolution of humans? -Zackery
The author claims that in groups composed of both altruistic and selfish individuals the altruists will tend
to be weeded out. Couldn't a species with altruistic members hypothetically discriminate between
altruists and nonaltruists and only behave altruistically towards other altruists? (Chapter 2- pg 54)Jessica
Sexual selection is said to be some very specific aspects in some types of animals and in humans as well.
The traits that are said to be the most attractive and sought for. If this is true why in humans does
everyone have different "tastes"? Also in animals that are not monogamous why is it that most animals
will mate even if they do not have the desired traits? -Halie
Chapter 2 discusses artificial selection and how humans have created "man-made" animals through
breeding and domesticating them, that we have in a way made the animals the way they are. Is it
possible that because of how much humans have changed the face of the earth that we may have
altered the characteristics of animals that we did not directly breed?-Jeff
"Selective breeding has also long been responsible for more radical changes in an organism's physical
form. The wise variety of domestic dogs that we see today- from chihuahuas to St Bernards- have been
created, in only a few hundred years, from a primitive wolf-like ancestor" (p.31). Has it been confirmed
that all dogs were created from a wolf-like ancestor. And furthermore, it seems that artificial selection,
specifically in the case of dogs, revolves around the needs of humans. This could range from needing
larger dogs to help on a farm or a socialite who thinks she attains status in society from carrying a
chihuahua in her purse. Do many of us not have dogs for the purposes of companionship or safety? Our
actions of artificial selection with dogs has probably greatly interfered with their natural selection and
hindered their abilities to evolve to the extent that they could have. Kara
What evolutionary factors could account for the differences between cultures? -Ronald
Oct 27
Workman and Reader Chapter 3: Sexual Selection
With regards to the debate about asexual vs. sexual reproduction, I'm surprised the book didn't mention
parental investment as a potential reason for the favoring of sexual reproduction. Simply put, if two
people are involved in the production of a child, it seems more likely that two people will help raise and
care for the child instead of the one person required by asexual reproduction. Is there a reason the text
didn't mention this/am I wrong? -Evan
On pg 63 Workman and Reader state "Trivers suggested that choosiness in females is a direct result of
their greater investment in offspring". This is supported throughout the chapter and seems to lead to
the idea that women are picky with mate whereas men go for the "quantity over quality" mindset.
Would this be expected to change in situations where men have an equal parental investment? -Theresa
Could the body building industry and increase in female preference for males with extreme muscle mass
be due to 'runaway selection'. -pg 61
Could humans have been designed to sexually reproduce rather than to asexually reproduce in order to
prevent overpopulation? -pg 67 –Samantha
On page 63, workman and reader talk about the female selection choice. I think this is interesting as
wright suggested that men were often the ones who had the ability to choose.
sylvea
I disagree with the handicap hypothesis (p 63). It seems like a stretch. Even if a male can succeed despite
a handicap, why would a female want her offspring to inherit the handicap, thereby reducing their
chances of survival? -Julia
What are your thoughts on the parasite theory, the handicap theory, and the runaway selection theory?
Are any of them viable to stand on their own or is there some sort of combination, and if so, how much?
–Megan
"Survival of the Sexiest"? http://lifeasahuman.com/2010/mind-spirit/humanity/ted-talk-a-darwiniantheory-of-beauty/ -Annie
p.70 A virus is argued to be both a living and nonliving thing so does the theory of the Red Queen also
apply to viruses and their ability to infect and transform? even those viruses or bacteria that have
become superbugs to medication? Are there any viruses that really aide society or did they evolve to
compete with our existence? -Holly
It seems like behavioral traits are passed on to your offspring as well and although behavioral traits can
be changed fairly quickly, how is it then that children adopt their parent's mannerisms so rapidly
whether they are beneficial or not? shouldn't the ones that are not beneficial to the child's survival not
be adopted? (pg 75-77)- Jessica
In both chapters about "Sexual Selection" and "Human Mate Choice," there seemed to be an obvious
and glaring dismissal of homosexuality as a human behavior. While this may prove convenient for the
general discussion of the majority, it would call into question such statements as "the ultimate function
of falling in love is to produce offspring" (97). What, if anything, does evolutionary psychology have to
say about the evolution of homosexuality in relation to mate choice and sexual selection? –Tyler
I would like to discuss the divine ration and the Fibonacci series and how people are more attracted to
people whose faces are more symmetrical and women's whose body curves fall under a specific ratio vs.
the idea of what protects our offspring (i.e. men and money)- Abi
If one of the main evolutionary goal for humans is to Reproduce, why are people having such a hard
time finding love or a mate? -Johnny
Nov 1
Workman and Reader Chapter 4: Human Mate Choice
On page 90 of chapter 5, Workman and Reader mention that human females evolved to appear
physically in a state of constant fertility during their fertile years thus making them attractive to mates.
They then compare a womanly shape to the peacock's tail. So is it beneficial for women of today to
surgically enhance true breasts in order to appear a more attractive mate? Where is the line between
"how did I get this lucky" big and too big? How does this interest in exaggerated sexual features vary by
culture? –Lara
In "one of the most revealing studies" by Clark and Hatfield (1989) pg.102, couldn't the differences
between men and women's reaction to casual sex with an attractive stranger be explained a bit more
simply by noting that going into a private room with a stranger is a bit more risky for women? -Ronald
How did certain attractiveness traits evolve if everyone has their own opinions on what's attractive?
Also, there is usually someone for everyone. -Stephanie
On page 86 Workman said that "... unlike chimps, there are a number of nutrients, in particular vitamins
A and B12, which we are no longer able to synthesize from a plant based diet." With an increase of
vegetarianism is it possible to have in short numbers of generations a change in the human canine teeth
and in the vitamins A and B12 synthesis as a better way to survive without meat? For example, in some
countries of Africa where the black market for ivory is intense elephants had evolved in a short
generation time with smaller ivory tusk. - Cristiane
Primates have been used as examples to understand human sexual behavior, but a difference Workmam
and Reader did not point out is the fact that our primates needed to produce more offspring in order to
ensure the survival of their species. -pg 82
I learned in an earlier class that a study showed that women had more orgasms with richer men. If this is
true, would this mean that women are genetically programmed to be gold diggers? - Jody Mak
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200902/do-wealthy-men-give-more-orgasms
Why do men continue to seek youthful features in females even when they have past their period of
fertility. -pg 95 -Samantha
On page 89 Workman and Reader discuss cryptic oestrus. Although they bring up that women with
concealed oestrus would be less attractive to men, they seem to blow off this idea and move on to the
presence of swollen breasts. However, why wouldn't women who appear to be constantly in oestrus be
more successful than women who can hide the signs? Originally, wouldn't men assume she was never in
oestrus? -Theresa
p.90 Since humans have permanently swollen breasts during their fertile years to provide a false oestrus
signal does the size of a women´s breasts actually matter in sexual attraction genetically speaking or is
size just a social construct? –Holly
Pg. 95 Workman and Reader list some examples of attractiveness and 'good looks'. But, they seem to be
oversimplifying the process of attraction (eliminating symmatry, pheromones, etc) when boiling it all
down to mere 'youthfulness'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEmX8Rim-hs -Annie
Pg 105 how might having a illegitimate child out of an infidelity with a higher status male raise the status
of a child? wouldn't this tend to create a stigma around a child especially in predominately monogamous
species such as humans? (guilt by association)? –Jeremy
Females who perceive themselves as less attractive might be more likely to engage in casual sexual
relationships since they are less likely to gain a long-term high-quality partner" (pg 107). Could this
provide an evolutionary explanation for boys teasing/making fun of girls? -Shaheen Jadali
"In societies where the father is not present during a girl's childhood she is likely to adopt a more
promiscuous adult strategy as men are less likely to enter into long-term commitments in such
societies." p 111 - How does this translate to our society where some fathers are present and some are
not? The girl may have been shown by example of her father that men are less likely to enter into longterm commitments, but within the body of society she could easily find a man that is likely to enter into
a long-term commitment. Would she still turn out more promiscuous as an adult? Kayla // In the
section about Context and Reproductive Strategies in Women, the authors mention that "daughters of
divorcees are distinctly more likely to be promiscuous than those of parents who stay together." Do you
think that there are any real evolutionary grounds for this claim or is this more of a cultural
generalization? Megan
Workman and Reader state on page 134 that women "empathize" (are more sensitive to emotional
states of others) more often than men, while men "systemize" (focus on concrete systems and
classification) more often than women. However, they go further to label an autistic brain as a male
brain, or one that systemizes, while a william's syndrome brain, one that empathizes, is female. Is it
correct to label an empathizing or systemizing brain by gender or should that just remain a correlation?
Lara
It seems like short-term sexual encounters would result in having more offspring. Wouldn't that affect
the characteristics selected for in natural selection? Wouldn't we have evolved to have more of the
traits that men and women look for in a short-term mate rather than a long-term mate? -Julia
In the reading, in chapter 5, I read about theory of mind, and specifically theory of mind and false
beliefs. It reminded me, to an extreme degree, of a video I once saw on ted.com that related this to the
rtpj region of the brain. Here is the link to it; I think you will find it interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html -Tyler
The book makes it sound as if females are mated with no matter what. To what extent is this true? For
example, it is known that some males will not be mated with for various reasons, but are all females
mated with? If so, then wouldn't this nondiscriminatory process lead to a widespread amount of female
genetic disorders in the species? -Zackery
Romantic love is said to borne to help aid the decision for long-term partnership, however if this the
case, doesn't that mean that romantic love will die as human culture develops past the point of focusing
on reproduction ?-Andrea H
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homePage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/Human%20Mate%20Selection%2
0-%201985.pdf In this article it touches on what draws someone to another or interesting facts that
correlate with couples; one is distance they lived from each other prior to dating. It said that it was often
very close, driving distance. While this makes sense and you meet others who are close to you but I
wonder if this is changing based on the new generation of internet dating sites. In light of this it also
stated that people often look for others who are similar in status and class, so does the lack of
knowledge about where a person is from change a dynamic of the relationship? -Halie
On page 89, an idea about male involvement in raising children might exist. I'm not convinced about the
theory because I believe there must be something more that causes a male to feel obligated to stick
around for an extended period of time. –Stephanie
Although the section about cryptic oestrus makes interesting points about female menstruation, I do not
think it's accurate to say that sexual selection basically made ovulation less obvious and that in turn, this
cryptic ovulation makes men perpetually attracted to females. Sexual selection may have a lot to do
with hidden periods but I also think that's largely a hygiene and social matter that has
evolved...especially since I don't think that a man not knowing when a woman is ovulating makes him
pay attention to her all the time. Some men actually try to figure out when a woman is ovulating and
menstruating so he can avoid her. p. 90 -Angela
Nov 3:
Workman and Reader Chapter 5,6: Cognitive and Social Development in an Evolutionary Persective
The box experiment (pg 120) assumes pre-knowledge that objects don't disappear and appear out of
nowhere. However, the babies were of 4 months, and could have learned very basic rules of physics.
Even some extremely common knowledge is not innate, like sex leads to babies (Wright). -Zackery
When reading about infants being able to recognize human faces (125), i was reminded of this study:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces.html
Basically, babies have a preference for people who are deemed "pretty" by society, and their looking
time for these faces is significantly greater. I wonder what this is an indication of, in terms of evolution.
Are evolutionarly predisposed to attractiveness, or does it have to do with media, as many would like us
to think? -Masha
In what way do you think that Machiavellian Intelligence has evolved to be used in our society today?
Have humans kept this trait or do you even think it is an evolved characteristic? (127) -Megan
page 136 It makes some evolutionary sense that males would have evolved better spacial abilities given
the need for male-centric activities such as hunting, however how would it be accounted for that males
generally outperform females on systemizing is in Scott Atran's 1990 study on Peruvian Aguaruna's plant
classifications given that females tend to be the foragers in regard to the provisioning hypothesis? –
Jeremy
On page 137, Workman mentioned a book called Animals in Translation which its author Grandin
speculates "...that people with autism have a cognitive style that is closer to animals. Like autism
people, animals tend to notice small details in the environment..." then he also says that perhaps
"...becoming less autistic-like was one of the changes to humans as they evolved." I would like to hear
what the class thinks about this. – Cristiane // Since autism could be an adaptive phenotype, is it wrong
to pursue gene manipulation in embryos to prevent the development of autism within children? –Holly
//If we accept the book's premise that autism is an example of the "super-male brain", then is autism
evolutionarily derived? It would seem that such a disorder would be selected against in the "old days",
but in modern society it no longer is to the same extent. If this is a trend, can we predict that more and
more disorders and maladaptive defects will crop up as we continue to advance medically and socially? Evan
Pg. 151
"Previously it had been noted (Whiting, 1965) that being reared in a home where the father is absent
following divorce leads to precocious sexual development. In particular, boys in father-absent homes
show more aggression than those who grow up in homes where fathers are present, are more rebellious
and, in adulthood, view women in a sexually exploitative way."
pg 152 "Draper and Harpending suggested that the economic disadvantages and uncertainty caused by
living in a single-parent compared to a two-parent family meant that maximising current reproductive
fitness would be more effective than maximising future reproductive fitness. Children in fatherless
homes, by maturing earlier and showing an early interest in sexual activity with multiple partners, are
simply adopting a reproductive strategy designed to maximise their inclusive fitness by producing
offspring early and at a high rate. Such tendencies, they argued, are formed in response to the presence
or absence of an investing father during a critical period between the ages of five and seven years." I
think this is interesting yet inconclusive. I would like to see similar studies done today. I do see how an
evolutionary/life history explanation fits but I don't think it should be seen as simply as described above.
More probing would be useful.
The first sentence from page 152 talked about disadvantages and uncertainty caused by living in a
'single-parent' family. The second sentence described the situation as 'children in fatherless homes.' I
think a study that could be done today would be to check for similar results in motherless homes. I also
think it would be cool to narrow down how significant of a rise in specific behaviors come from specific
disadvantages. For example, have control groups of two-parent families with economic struggles, and
even single-parent families with no economic struggles. Another possibility that would be harder to pull
off would be to study children raised in a town/society where factors which had a significant effect
(single-parent/fatherless home) were deemed normal so as to not alarm the child to a disadvantage; if
confounding social factors could be eliminated, a clearer evolutionary perspective could be expressed. Shaheen Jadali
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/with-more-single-fathers-a-changing-family-picture/
"the number of single-father families in the United States has jumped
27 percent in the past decade"
The discussion on the development and evolutionary function of morals (p.169-179) seems plausible,
but it seems as if a lot of individuals tie morals to religion. Why is that? -Theresa
Nov 8
Workman and Reader Chapter 7: Kin relationships as a source of altruism
On page 188, Sahlins’ refutation was itself criticized. While I agree with the argument that an organism
mustn’t know fractions to intuitively make a decision ( I was shocked that Sahlin actually made this
comment), I think all too often, evolutionary psychologists rests on the argument of intuitive decisions.
-Sylvea
In the textbook, the authors make it clear that, "from research, on sex differences, this [stereotyping] is
not mere prejudice, there really do seem to be differences between the average male and the average
female personality." However, the feminist movement seems to think differently. Do you think that
people should give more credit to the evolutionary stance than pro feminism? -Megan
Adoption: When asking people if they want to have kids, most don't say "because I want to pass on my
genes" but are more likely to say "because I want to pass on my traditions" (or something of the sort).
Could this need to pass on cultural practices, beliefs, morals, etc. via teaching and providing a conducive
environment be considered just as "inclusively fit" as the passage of genes to offspring? p. 188-191 –
Angela // On page 190, Workman explains that "it may have made adaptive sense to adopt young
orphaned individuals since, as a member of small tribe, they would mostly been relatives in some
degree". However, the act of adoption would be used also to show off altruism and selfless to the
others? -Cristiane= //Workman and Reader explain why there may be the desire to take care of orphan
children when he discusses adoption in the West (p. 189-192). However, what has lead individuals to
adopt animals and provide them with resources that may better serve their own children? Is this an
extension of the same motivation/mindset? –Theresa// Perhaps the rising prevalence of homosexuality
is evolutions solution to overpopulation? This is, of course, assuming that homosexuality is genetically
determined. Homosexuals, obviously, by nature of physics, cannot have children (also assuming that
evolution doesn't account for technology such as artificial insemination). Their only solution to this is to
adopt - which does not increase the overall population, but rather makes use of an already existing one.
[I'm not saying I actually agree with this, it's just a thought!] -Masha
I don't know if I agree with Trivers' theory about parent-offspring conflict (p 196-201). Obviously, a
mother having another baby creates some conflict between parents and offspring, but this isn't always
the case. Also, only children usually have the same amount of conflict with their parents. Additionally,
during puberty, Trivers suggests that there will be more conflict between a mother who is still fertile and
her daughter. Yet this doesn't explain conflict between parents and sons, or between a mother who is
beyond reproductive age and her offspring. Families in both these situations still have conflict. How can
that be explained? –Julia // In the case of a fertile mother not wanting to become a grandmother too
soon because she would rather pass on her own complete genes instead of allow her daughter's less
similar genotype to reproduce (pg 199-200), the mechanism for the "decision" is the gene's direct
reproductive self-interest. Is it not also entirely possible that the gene "knows" that the mother ought to
prevent her daughter from reproducing because of the limited resources in a family unit, or does the
former consideration outweigh the latter? Tyler //Triver's theory suggested that a child would not
procreate as a teen due to limited resources. Why has the reproduction age not been pushed to a later
age if natural selection favors a later reproduction time. Also, it was known that many cultures marry at
younger ages. Is this a contradiction to the norm? -Zackery
Kin altruism theory demonstrates that you show more altruistic behaviors to anyone who shares your
gene, and the closer they are related to you the more important they are. The logic behind it is that
when you take care of someone who has closer genetic match as yours you will be able to save those
genes to be passed on. So in that logic who will receive more altruism: the mate or the brother/sister?
Will it make a difference if that mate was pregnant with your child or if it was you parents instead of
brother/sister? -Johnny
When the book was discussing self-sacrifice, it failed to mention behaviors of self-sacrifice unrelated to
kin, such as a captain going down with his ship or people on 9/11 saving strangers at the cost of their
own lives. Is there an evolutionary explanation for this? Or is this simply an exception to the rule? –Evan
If ¨...the maximization of inclusive fitness through the maximal production of grandchildren.¨p. 196 is
the goal, how did religions come about who did not promote sex in their community? What was their
rationale? Also could some people not want to share their genes and therefore don´t procreate? –Holly
"Most social scientists explain the existence of families in terms of historical and economic factors, but
evolutionary psychologists explain it as the result of two main dispositions: dispositions to mate and
dispositions to favour kin" (195). If this idea of a family is based off of just dispositions to mate and
favor kin, then how does the father who stays at home fit into this role? It seems that this is a new
concept that is a direct result of social changes. -Andrea
Nov 10
PAPER DUE
Workman and Reader Chapter 8: Reciprocity as a source of altruism
In the course of the research for my paper on the evolution of homosexuality, I discovered that samesex sexual behavior can actually be a strategy for reinforcing homosocial relationships by increasing
trust between the participating individuals. If this is the case, then what sense, if any, could the recently
repealed policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell possibly have made? -Tyler
How does reciprocity altruism account for people who choose to become "organ donors" in which they
will receive no gratitude or praise for their donation? - Jessica
Nov 15
Workman and Reader Chapter 9: Evolution and cognition
"Once adaptationist thinking is applied to vision we realize that representing the world as it actually is is
not the primary goal of perception; the primary goal of perception is action..." (p. 235) Given that are
actions are based off of out perceptions, would the majority of our actions be considered automatic and
unconscious or thought-out and conscious? -Kara
Workman and Reader write that memory did not simply evolve "to store and retrieve information" but
rather to store and retrieve goal-relevant information (pg. 239). Often, under pressure, we tend to stress
over certain goal-relevant tasks like papers or tests. What role does stress play on memory? Does it help
or does it hinder your goal-relevant memory? And, if it does help at which degree is it most optimal and
when is it too much? -Annie
Chomsky argues that certain parts of language are innate i.e. phonemes as the building blocks of
language (pg 272). Here are two videos which I think support this argument but something to
consider....does baby babbling constitute language? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaujcjgE16g&feature=related -Angela
Is it possible that a brain as complex as ours would be beneficial to other species? Our brain allows us to
do much more than other species and overcome the environment. Or is it possible that we only
developed a complex mind after overcoming the environment. Would a smarter brain be detrimental to
other species as to take away their instincts? -Zackery
Hoffman
I think the example of the Australian beetles worked well with what Donald Hoffman was arguing
regarding the point that natural selection awards fitness not accuracy. However, how did this evolve?
Wouldn't the beetles that that didn't respond in such a way overpower the gene pool after the majority
of beetles that confronted the bottles died before reproducing? Furthermore, is it natural for the ants
to wait around the bottles or was that another adaptation? -Theresa
Based on Bayes' circle theorem which states "we can only see the world through our posteriors. When
we measure priors and likelihoods in the world, our measurements are necessarily altered through our
posteriors. Using our measurements of priors and likelihoods to justify our posteriors thus leads to a
vicious circle," can one no longer perceive the visual world if memory is tampered or lost? (Hoffman, 8)
Samantha
Purves et al
Do people percieve the same colors or is it that they just agree that red is red for example becuase that
is what it is named based off its brightness and luminance? Could a difference in perception like this
explain why people perfer certain colors over others? -Holly
In response to the "Why we see things the way we do: evidence for a wholly empirical strategy of
vision". study, if a changing in color gradient is so difficult to see visually without assigning borders, do
rainbows produce the same Mach band spinning disk effect? -Lara
Without resulting to Lamarckian theories, how can we explain how the acquired knowledge about visual
stimuli that contribute to the collective ability of an individual to better perceive future stimuli (on the
basis of past stimuli) is passed on genetically? While these authors claim that this sort of "knowledge" of
past stimuli could be directly inherited through natural selection, I would argue that only a
predisposition to be able to develop this foundation of visual statistical knowledge is passed on, since
knowledge itself, in the absence of language, is not directly heritable. Tyler
Nov 17
Workman and Reader Chapter 10: Evolution of Language
How do stories of feral children, like the case of Genie, fit in with Chomsky's idea that language is innate
(p 272)? -Julia
http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/genie.html
http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/
If, as the reading suggests, language evolved as a function of social behavior, is it reasonable to assume
that we should see a clear pattern in relative language development in other species and amount of
social behavior? If so, that would be strong evidence in favor of the evolutionary outlook on language. –
Evan
At the beginning of the of the chapter the question of whether or not language is species specific or not
(particularly specific to humans) is explored using 10 criteria that define language, however, I propose
based on the findings presented by specific language impairment research which claims that there is a
gene for language, that instead of using the 10 criteria to test whether or not other species have
language we should use specific language impairment testing. -pgs 264 & 278 -Samantha
I can see a lot of truth in Dunbar's social grooming hypothesis of language creation. With social
networking aids like Facebook and LinkedIn, does "Dunbar's number" of the ideal number of friends
change from 150? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2YAzJP3o84&feature=related -Lara // I am
curious as to what evidence Dunbar has to support that 150 is a good estimate of human group size (p.
292). It seems like a rather high estimate. Is he specifically referring to the hunter-gatherers, or is he
claiming that in general each individual has 150 close friends? -Theresa
Robin Dunbar argues that language "evolved as a means of maintaining social bonds through gossip"
(272). The author of the textbook goes on to explain that gossip helped lead to an increase human brain
size because people had to keep track of each other etc. Today, it seems that gossip is considered a bad
thing. How do you think gossip evolved to have such a negative connotation in today's society if it
originated to help us evolve to be a more intelligent species? Is gossip actually bad? Megan
Do you think we are social creatures because we created language or is language a product of us being
social. Do you think language is limiting the choice in mate selection? –Johnny
Are there root origins for language from where all human languages have been derived? I have heard
that there are 5 different basic origins and the rest were contrived from them but is that even possible?
-Holly
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/where-on-earth-did-language-begin/
The kinds of assumptions that are mentioned on page 269 that help us to learn words without true
understanding of intended context seem like yet another of those assumptions that serve as adaptive
"short-cuts." Could this context-sensitive kind of linguistic assumption be related to the phenomena of
being able to easily read words in which the letters are scrambled, so long as the first and last letters are
in the rhigt pcale? –Tyler
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/rawlinson.html
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/12/cambridge-word-scramble-study-its-fake.html
-How did we think prior to language? It seems like it would be hard to utilize that thinking voice in your
head without having a language to think in. -Ron
Nov 22
Workman and Reader Chapter 11: Evolution of Emotion
"Also, at least in Western industrialized society, we are frequently embarrassed when asked about or
emotions." (p 306) Why is that? Why is there this pressure from society to hide how we feel? -Masha
Is Paul Ekman's study about emotion being universal proof that emotions are hardwired?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PFqzYoKkCc –Johnny // if emotion is a universal adaptation, then
how do people of different areas of the world react differently to different emotions? –Jeff…
On page 315-317, Workman talks about how different cultures differ in relation to emotional response,
it just seems very interesting that the majority of countries that have a tropical climate are known to
have happy and friendly (more emotional) people, for example Jamaica and countries that have severe
winters are known for have more rational and "cold" people like Russia. Also, those happier countries
are in the majority less developed than the ones that are more rational. -Cristiane=…
On page 315 the notion of universal emotions is discussed and cite how different expressions of
emotions may vary from culture to culture. It is also suggested that some emotions are innate while
others may be learned. I am curious to find out if there are variations on expressing pain throughout
different cultures. Obviously the way one will express and manage their pain differs from culture to
culture, but what about acute unbearable uncontrollable pain, or unexpected pain? -Lara
The book explains that happiness helps to broaden one's mind and build resources (pg 320-321). Could
happiness also have been shaped by sexual selection? Maybe being happy allows you to attract more
mates. -Julia
In the text, joy "embodies the urge to be playful" (pg.321), interest is described as the rewarding and
pleasurable urge to engage in exploration, and contentment "is the state which creates the urge to
'savor and integrate recent events and experiences'". So if the following of these urges is what brings us
the benefits of 'broadened mindsets' then is the happiness that results from engaging in the urged
behaviors just an extra reinforcement selected for to further increase the likelihood of following these
urges? –Ron
Part of the chapter was about whether all emotions or just some are adaptations. I don't believe that
most negative emotions were adaptations because of the effects they have on our health. Maybe this is
why humans in general are not very good at managing negative emotions. –Stephanie
 Why-Zebras-Dont-Get-Ulcers
¨...does the amygdala provide us with the feeling of anxiety, excitement, and general readiness for
action, or does the adrenalin that is ´pumping away´ somehow cause these feelings?¨ p. 314 Could it not
be both and be a more situationally dependent reaction? For example being frieghtened suddenly and
the adrenalin causing the feeling versus anticipating an exciting event and the amygdala controlling the
emotions? –Holly
A digression: Toxoplasmosis infects the amygdala to suppress fear:
Sapolsky video
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0608310104
How does memory and emotion work together? Obviously, some memories bring us joy and others
pain. Why do memories and emotions work together and how are they evolutionarily beneficial? Zackery
Workman and Reader conclude the chapter by stating that emotions are the driving forces behind
cognitive processes and that it is a task, a difficult one, for evolutionary psychologists to determine
which emotional states are "adaptations and which are emergent properties" -pg. 324. But consider that
emotions are the physiological and psychological expressions of the ranging properties of our genes
shaped by interactions with others and the environment. Consider also that emotions shape the way the
mind perceives these interactions with others and the environment. In this symbiotic relationship,
emotions may not have evolved as mechanisms to AID survival and fitness but are the genetic codes OF
survival that shape what is fit. –Annie (1)
I think emotions are the expressions of the body and the body is a reflection of our emotions. If we can
change the way we feel we most certainly change the way we look and behave. Does our body not hold
stress? What are ailments and illnesses? Maybe they are the physical expressions of our emotional
state. Why do emotions have to be the expressions of our genetic needs? What is emotions shape and
guide and select our genes?
We can "knock" on our emotions by physical practice (exercise, meditation breathing, sleeping, etc,
etc...). This is the outside in approach, 'knocking' on the doors from the outside to move what's
inside.We can "melt" our physical states by emotional control (love, kindness, meditation on emotions,
etc, etc...). this is the inside out approach, 'melting' the outside with the heat and motion from within.
Finally, we can combine both the inside-out approach and the outside-in approach with practices that
are both emotional and physical such as singing and dancing. Wait a minute... singing and dancing are
also just as 'universal' to mankind as emotions such as Ekman's 6 basic emotions, aren't they? So what
do psychologists say singing and dancing are? What do they represent psychologically in evolution? –
Annie (2)
**************** Extra readings:
An interesting general discussion by various luminaries of the field (choose video or text):
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html
Disgust: a paper about the suggested commonality between taste/smell disgust and moral disgust:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1222.full
"Recent work supports Darwin's thesis that the configuration of emotional facial expressions has
evolved from a functional role in regulating sensory inake. These ancestral configurations may later have
proven useful as social signals, assuming a new function without needing to change their basic form.
Consequently, if moral disgust really is born from the same emotion involved in rejection of hazardous
foods, then there should be continuity in facial actions between moral and oral disgust, despite the
former being far removed from its purported origin in food rejection" I do not think there is specifically
an oral origin for the moral feeling of disgust, this is too specific and the experience felt when eating
something bad versus seeing something which is morally degrading is perhaps similar but not at all the
same. A "bad taste in my mouth" usually refers to sustaining negative emotions about a person or
situation after witnessing the morally offensive behavior. Contrary to what the article proposes, I believe
that the lingering social opinions that this saying refers to has more of an evolutionary basis than an
actual bad taste or any proposed facial/sensory reactions. –Angela // I think the article linking disgust
and olfaction and taste was a bit contrived. After all, it is entirely possible that our muscles react to
certain stimulus the same as a way of conservation. I don't think it necessarily means that the senses are
linked. -Sylvea
Nov 29 Workman and Reader Chapter 12: Evolutionary Psychiatry
Why is does depression occur more in women than in men? It makes more sense that more men would
be depressed considering the social competition hypothesis. –Stephanie…
On page 342, Workman and Reader discuss the social competition hypothesis and describe those who
are depressed as losing or being subordinate to a more dominant person. They them mention that high
levels of serotonin correspond to dominance in vervet monkeys, which was also described by Wright
earlier in the quarter, and that the alpha male will have higher levels of serotonin than his peers. It is
interesting to relate the idea to the increased serotonin levels as found in the leader of a Fraternity.
Could there possibly be a lesser presence of depression in these leaders? Could perhaps an event that
may lead to their dismissal as leader or the end of a term bring about a depressed state compared to a
baseline or normal state? -Lara
It seems as if the article on schizophrenia ignores the fact that those with schizophrenia are not always
demonstrating symptoms. Not all people develop the disorder during the reproductive age, and not all
people with the disorder show these symptoms continually. Although I agree with the idea that there
are "carrier alleles", isn't also plausible that individuals with the disorder mate while their symptoms are
hidden? –Theresa …
Is there a proven greater rate of bipolar/ schizophrenia in creative people? How about in the most
succesful creative people? Also should we treat it as a mental disorder if it leads to such creativity?
Holly…
If Cluster B personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and histrionic pd, which seem to
be adaptive strategies such as those adopted by the cheating lemming, can be accounted for by an
evolutionary perspective, and Cluster C can (according to my own thinking) be explained as adaptive in
that they would serve to reduce conflict, how can an evolutionary perspective perspective account for
more mundanely bizarre Cluster A personality disorders such as schizoid pd and schizotypal pd? –Tyler
Anxiety, ADHD, OCD,
I understand how anxiety could have been an adaptive trait and its uses in the Pleistocene, but is it
really natural for us to worry and have anxiety as much as we do in the West or is it simply caused by us
living in the 1st world? –Jeff…
As our species evolved we developed more complex ways of being anxious (as we are able to conceive
of future events and worry about them). On balance these more complex forms of anxiety may have
given our ancestors a selective advantage by developing into a 'verification module' (i.e. one that looks
for things to worry about in order to avoid problems before they occur). But they may also have opened
the door to the disorder in individuals that have this module at 'the wrong setting" (pg. 338). OCD is an
anxiety disorder with varying degrees of intensity depending on the individual. However, from an
evolutionary perspective, OCD demonstrates how when humans encounter intense emotions, we are
evolving to deal with them more efficiently. OCD involves checking, double checking, recurrent thoughts
and urges based around obsessions. OCD can reach unhealthy extremes that can interfere with people's
daily lives. However, when considering the alternative (handling anxiety with disorganization, and
scattered thoughts, forgetfulness), it seems that OCD represents a positive evolutionary aspect in how
humans handle specific emotions. -Kara
Although, I can kind of see where the authors are getting at when describing psychopath and HPD
disorder as having an evolutionary basis, I feel as though they just threw ADHD in there, and there's
really no foundation for it. I just can't see the evolutionary basis for something that could be
as debilitating as ADHD is -Masha
The book says that most of personality is due to environmental causes(pg 370). Could it be that
evolution simply is not fast enough to develop personalities for our changing environment rather than
"deciding" to leave them up to the environment? -Stephanie …
- In a hunter gatherer society that is unlikely to make vast changes in its composition, where the social
environment remains relatively static and predictable, it seems like personality disorders are rather
adaptive in allowing someone to form dispositions that will help them deal with the people in their
community. Such as a paranoid person in a community of liars and cheats. -Ronald
Wright writes "if no opportunities arise and lethargy passes into mild depression, this mood may goad
them into a fruitful shift of course" (p. 271) Does this mean that the people who stay depressed choose
not to - or are unable to - change course. And is there a correlation between a rise in depression and a
decrease in "social, or professional" prospects, given our declining economy? - Masha
On pages 356-357, as well as throughout the chapter, there is much discussion as to the genetic
component of personality disorders. However, can't this heritability itself be explained in terms of
evolution? Most personality disorders (such as antisocial personality disorder) occur in response to
specific environmental conditions (cold parents, etc). However, wouldn't it make sense that, since the
siblings will more than likely be raised in the same environment, there would be an advantage in
inheriting the same defense mechanisms? …
Also, I know you want us to limit our questions, but on page 330 there is discussion that symptoms
benefit hosts and the virus such as sneezing "even though such symptoms may damage others in the
population". Is it in our best interest for others to catch what we have as well? And if so is this why we
aren't genetically predisposed to "cover our cough"? –Theresa
If the morning sickness, page 330, is an adaptation to protect the baby against toxins in food why some
pregnant women get sick with some kind of food and others just don't. - Cristiane
"As a young child, Stephen Wiltshire was a mute - he was diagnosed as autistic and was sent to a school
for special needs children. There, he discovered a passion for drawing - first of animals, then London
buses, then buildings and the city's landmarks. Throughout his childhood, Stephen communicated
through his drawings. Slowly, aided by his teachers, he learned to speak by the age of nine (his first word
was "paper.") –Cristiane
pg 351. Tim Crow posits that schizophrenia and language were evolutionarily linked, owing to the many
types of hallucinations that are associated with the with lateralization of speech and audition
(specifically speech perception). However, if the disorder arouse before language, and thus the capacity
to describe the internal phenomena, could this potentially account for its early form going unnoticed
within groups and thus becoming ingrained in the gene pool? - Jeremy
http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstmep/evmed/program.htm can you look at this program?? why can't we
go back in time and then teleport to west london?? -Annie
Stephen has a particularly striking talent: he can draw an accurate and detailed landscape of a city after
seeing it just once! He drew a 10 meter (~33 ft) long panorama of Tokyo following a short helicopter
ride." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95L-zmIBGd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aru6c7dzVVE -Jody
************
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/animals/news-parasitic-wasp-larvae-emerging-caterpillar
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html
Dec 1 Workman and Reader Chapter 13: Evolutionary Psychology and Culture; Tomasello
Pg. 410 Why might some memes, like the high status of cows in Indian culture, be more resistant to
change than that of others (i.e. traditional food gathering strategies of the Rekouhu)? –Jeremy
p. 425 If the research suggests that the peak age is between the late twenties and mid thirties, why are
so many politicians older? Would it be beneficial to have a younger congress in general and have a cap
on when you have to stop working instead of not allowing younger people in? -Holly
"They propose that cultural practices can evolve by a process akin to group selection. In their view,
different cultures can be seen as being in competition, with the successful culture being the one whose
practices are passed on to the next 'generation'. For example, one tribe might destroy another as a
result of war (perhaps because their war-making technologies are more effective)" (pg. 407).
I agree that cultures whose practices are passed on to the next generation in an effective manner
(considering time, knowledge, and the environment) can be more successful, especially when examining
history. However, we now live in a world where technology has become a global phenomenon and given
different cultures the ability to share information and help one another. For the devil's advocates
jumping in their seats- Look at this from a more general perspective - I am fully aware there are cultures
who have never even witnessed an electrical spark. Given this context and based on this idea from the
text...In today's times, would you say technology is utilized by different cultures to be the most
successful and fully evolved culture? OR...Is technology a tool to bring various cultures together from
different parts of the world to share knowledge and help one another, diminishing
the competitive perspective?....Maybe both? -Kara
******
The exponential growth of our cultural and technological development since the industrial revolution
seems to me like a evolutionarily adaptive sort of ideological iteroparity designed to maximize our
cultural production as a result of the benefits of industrialization (cultural/technological resources). Is
this why, prior to the IR, such development only happened in spread-out revolutionary spurts
(ideological semelparity)? Tyler
With the advent of technology such as the internet and cell phones, horizontal transmission would seem
to predict a certain homogenization of culture across the technologically advanced cultures of the world.
What are some barriers to this homogenization, and what are the possible effects? –Evan
Is culture a byproduct of language or vice versa? -Ronald