James Bramlett
QA 9/11/14
How does the evolutionary approach use the phrase ‘the function of behavior’
differently from a traditional social psychology approach?
Social psychology uses the term in a more proximal sense. That is to say the
function of a behavior is interpreted as a means to serve a more immediate goal. While
from an evolutionary perspective this may still be true, the behavior is taken within the
overall context that the goal will eventually lead to an increase in biological fitness. A
social psychologist may be interested in the immediate effects and nuances surrounding a
primate’s warning call (when it occurs, who gives it, who listens), whereas an
evolutionary biologist would likely focus on the overall self-preservation effects. Possible
overlap here may be a mating ritual?
According to the evolutionary approach, why don’t evolved psychological
mechanisms lead to optimal solutions in today’s environment?
Evolution occurs at a slower rate than we can alter either our environment or our
society. The selection pressures that may have existed before we controlled for the
various situations in which the adaptations were beneficial may no longer exist at all.
Neuberg et al (2010) explain that one of the most common examples of this is the false
attribution of danger to a benign situation. This may have helped us survive in the past,
though in today’s world results in an overreaction.
According to the evolutionary approach, natural selection is not creative, why not?
Creativity implies (consciously) adding an aspect to deal with a problem, whereas
evolution is a largely subtractive process. It removes individuals, and thus their traits,
from an environment that they are unfit to survive or reproduce in. Any additive
properties that may assist with fitness would be the result of a random mutation. These
would only be specifically selected for given an environment that removed others lacking
it.
“Selfish genes need not result in selfish people” (p.785). Explain.
Neuberg et al (2010) describes evolution as a process that generally favors
“expected average payoffs”. That is to say bravery (or aggression) in a situation may, on
average, result in a beneficial outcome. In the same vein, altruistic deeds generally
benefit a community or group as a whole at the expensive of the individual. It’s important
to keep in mind that evolution does not just favor the direct transmission of one’s genes
but also of those which you share familiar relationships and to, albeit perhaps less so,
those in your community.
“…the organisms of today are now known to be the social groups of past ages”
(p.329). Explain.
The evolutionary effect on a social group as a whole is not determined necessarily
by individual actions, but by the net consequences of that group’s overall behavior. One
group may have a large number of self-sacrificing, altruistic members that allows it to
persist over time whereas another may die out due to selfish behavior. In this way the
individual organisms of today are largely the products of prior generations of groups
rather than being solely shaped by individuals.
Q: Given that many of our past selection pressures no longer exist, do you find it feasible
that we are, evolutionarily speaking, stagnant?