History (very short) .
Evolutionary approach to human
behavior has gone by various names,
focusing on universals or diversity.
Focus on
universals
Human
Ethology
(50’s & 60’s)
(Human)
Sociobiology
(70’s & 80’s)
Evolutionary
Psychology
(90’s on)
Focus on
variation/diversity
(Cultural
Anthropology)
(Human)
Socioecology
(Human)
Behavioral Ecology
Problems humans present to an
evolutionary approach to behavior:
• Individual differences
• Learning/experience is everything.
(What have genes got to do with it?)
• Culture is everything.
(What have genes got to do with it?)
• Our psychology does not seem to be
organized around inclusive fitness.
• Many common human behaviors are
patently non-adaptive (contraception,
adoption, drug-taking, risk-taking,
war, Mother Theresa, etc).
• Evolutionary theory when applied to
human behavior is considered morally
repugnant (e.g., ‘Social Darwinism’).
1975
Allen et al: Against “Sociobiology”
“What we are left with then is a
particular theory about human
nature, which has no scientific
support, and which upholds the
concept of a world with social
arrangements remarkably similar to
the world which E. O. Wilson inhabits.
We are not denying that there are
genetic components to human
behavior. But we suspect that human
biological universals are to be
discovered more in the generalities
of eating, excreting and sleeping than
in such specific and highly variable
habits as warfare, sexual exploitation
of women and the use of money as a
medium of exchange.”
“What Wilson’s book illustrates to us
is the enormous difficulty in
separating out not only the effects
of environment (e.g., cultural
transmission) but also the personal
and social class prejudice of the
researcher. Wilson joins the long
parade of biological determinists
whose work has served to buttress
the institutions of their society by
exonerating them from responsibility
for social problems.”
Sociobiology (or Evolutionary
Psychology) & Politics
Evolutionary theory when applied to
human behavior is often considered
morally repugnant (e.g., ‘Social
Darwinism’).
Do you think there is a natural
connection between an evolutionary
approach to human behavior and a
particular political attitude?
The “Naturalistic Fallacy” :
Arguments which draw ethical
conclusions from the fact that
something is "natural" or "unnatural”.
(Hume; Moore)
The “Naturalistic Fallacy”
Arguments which claim to draw ethical
conclusions from the fact that
something is "natural" or "unnatural".
(Hume; Moore)
Natural selection is a natural process
that increases the frequency of
certain genes and eliminates others,
that yields some kinds of organisms
rather than others; but it is not a
process moral or immoral in itself or
in its outcome, in the same way as
gravity is not a morally laden force.
In order to consider some
evolutionary events as morally right
and others wrong, we must introduce
human values.
~ Francisco Ayala
The evolutionary approach & the
‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ –
Does evolutionary viewpoint imply a
particular political point of view?
Robert Trivers
– the 1st
Evolutionary
Psychologist
Robert Trivers
1971. The evolution of
reciprocal altruism.
Quarterly Review of
Biology 46: 35-57.
1972. Parental investment
and sexual selection.
In Campbell, B. (ed.), Sexual Selection
and the descent of man.
1975. Parent-offspring conflict.
American Zoologist 14: 249-264.
1976. (with Hare, H.). Haplodiploidy and
the evolution of the social insects.
Science 191: 249-263.
1982. (with Newton, H.P). The crash of
flight 90: doomed by self-deception?
Science Digest 111: 66-67.
2011. The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit
and Self-Deception in Human Life.
Basic Books.
"The benefit of self-deception
is the more fluid deception of
others. The cost is an impaired
ability to deal with reality.“
(Trivers/Newton 1982: 66)
Robert Trivers
the first evolutionary psychologist
Robert Trivers
the first evolutionary psychologist
The Fallacy of Genetic Determinism
1977
The Fallacy of Genetic Determinism
1995
Time 1977 & Time 1995: Role of genes
inferred from behavior (and theory)
Time 2004: Key issue is a presumed
gene-behavior correlation
Any trait has its underlying genetic-
developmental program.
Any trait difference can be due to a
genetic difference or an environmental
(experiential) difference.
Obligate trait: Phenotypic difference
is correlated with genetic difference.
Term does not imply that environment
(experience) has no effect in
development or expression of the
trait, only that the trait difference
can be traced to a genetic difference.
Facultative trait: Phenotypic diff. is
correlated with environmental diff.
Genotype ‘assumes’ and requires
environmental difference to produce
the phenotypic difference.
Polyphenic development in
spadefoot toad tadpole
(genus Spea)
Summary of Experiments:
No
Yes
Bluegill Sunfish Alternative
Reproductive Strategies
Potentially a Facultative Trait