Evolutionary Psychology
Final Exam
Spring 2013
Answer all of Questions 1-10 (but see below, you can sub in one of the three extra-credit questions).
Open-book and open-resource except consult no one else. Return your answers to me in the course
dropbox (Catalyst link on webpage) by midnight Friday 14 June. Earlier would be great! At the top of your
exam put the following:
The answers to these questions are mine alone; I consulted no one else in writing my answers.
____________________________ (type your name)
1. Imagine yourself back in the EEA. Go through Haidt’s six moral foundations, and tell me how they
would have functioned in that, the original context.
2. Throughout his book, Haidt brings in psychology lab experiments to support his arguments. Most of
them are short-term, pretty artificial experiments. This doesn’t mean they are no good, but the
experimental context has to be realistic enough that we feel comfortable generalizing to real world
situations. Question: critique the ‘can race be erased’ (Kurzban et al) and ‘altruistic punishment’ (Fehr &
Gachter) studies in this respect. Identify any limitations of the experimental context you think may
impede their generalizability. Suggest a modification (or alternative version) of the experimental
context that you think would have been better.
3. What does the finding that a trait like political attitude is (partially) heritable mean for Haidt's overall
argument in his book?
4. List some of the contexts in which the ventromedial prefrontal cortex keeps up coming up. What does
this mean for Haidt’s overall argument in his book?
5. Robert Wright wrote a very popular trade book in 1994 called The Moral Animal (it was a NY Times
best-seller that year). It was basically a popularization of the field then called Sociobiology and now
called Evolutionary Psychology. Although it was quite different from Haidt’s book, it does have one big
similarity that you can tell from its title. Question: read and then critique the attached review (‘Wright
and Wrong’) by Richard Lynn for the National Review (and if you don’t know the National Review,
google it up).
6. A person taking an evolutionary perspective on human behavior may be led to the conclusion that
many altruistic behaviors, both big (e.g., diving into the river to save a drowning person) and small (e.g.,
giving blood), are “fundamentally selfish because they once served the interests of his ancestors'
genes”. Question: explain what is wrong with this argument.
7. This will be going against the grain for most of you – hey, that’s what the course was all about! – but
give me the ‘conservative wisdom’ underlying their reservations about (a) welfare, and (b) affirmative
action.
8. So, according to Haidt (and Dale Carnegie), what is the best way to try and change someone’s mind on
a moral issue?
9. In the last election, Todd Akin, Missouri’s Republican Senate candidate, claimed that victims of
“legitimate rape” very rarely get pregnant because their bodies “have a way of shutting the whole thing
down”: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79864.html
Question: First, what is the evidence that conception following rape is less (or more) likely? (You may
have to google this up!). Second, how would Haidt describe Akin’s statements about rape?
10. From Jen (on the Discussion Board): I had a question about Chapter 8 of Haidt. He states, "Everyone –
left, right, and center – cares about proportionality; everyone gets angry when people take more than
they deserve," and he cites violations of the fairness principle as triggering this angry reaction. He says
this explains his angry emails from economic conservatives about lazy, welfare frauds and irresponsible
homeowners. However, this does not address the bankers, CEOs, and Wall Street manipulators who got
away nearly scot-free. True, people despised them, but if our instinct is to punish cheaters, liars, and
scammers, why is there such a disproportionality here? Why are some people allowed to cheat and
others are not? If we are supposed to be so concerned with the proportionality of punishment, how
does a welfare fraud (who has stolen CONSIDERABLY less than the millions or billions stolen by bankers)
face jail time and the bankers do not? How does this explain the clear real-world disproportionality
within our own justice system, as well as between justice systems of the world?
Optional Extra Credit Question (don’t answer more than one, but if you do answer one, I will sub it for your
lowest of the regular questions)
1. What are the conflicting moral foundations in Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew”? (If you don’t
know the play, you will have to google it up!)
2. In his final chapter, Haidt presents Muller as a reasonable conservative (and based on my minimal
reading of Muller so far, I would agree). However, here is the question someone else has asked about
Muller: “[Muller] is unable to contest the claim that conservative arguments are simply made in bad
faith in order to defend existing power structures”. Question: What is the writer saying here? Do you
have any idea how one could distinguish good-faith from bad-faith arguments?
3. I think we all have that religiosity button, it’s just that it gets pushed in different ways for different
people. For me it is certain music, some of the solo pieces by Bach being really potent examples. For
others it might be a movie or a play or a novel or an experience in nature (to list some of the best
candidates). I remember going to a movie in college with several friends including one Jewish friend,
Jeff Roisman. He and I were both very moved by the movie “He Who Must Die” which is based on the
novel Christ Recrucified by Nikos Kazantzakis (his most famous book being Zorba the Greek). Why was
this movie – basically the Christ story – so moving for one non-believer and his Jewish friend? I know
there are many possible explanations, but I do think that whatever your explanation may be, that
button is there for most (all?) of us, just waiting to get pushed, and it is definitely in Elephant land, not
Rider land. Question: riff on this idea.