Topic
overview
This
topic covers some fairly demanding
material. You may find it useful to do the three 'warm up
exercises' before tackling the more advanced material. They
are designed to show you
that you already have a reasonably clear understanding of evolutionary
psychology by this
stage of the module.
Darwin's
writings on evolution have spawned
two fundamentally different types of controversy.
- Some
people object to the idea that animals we see around us have evolved
from species that lived in the past. Creationists believe that the Book
of Genesis is a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life on our
planet.
- Contemporary
scientists are not creationists. Scientists accept that evolution has
occurred, but disagree amongst themselves on how
evolution happened. They have particularly fierce debates on the role
of natural and sexual selection in human behaviour.
It is
very important to appreciate and keep
these two controversies separate in your mind. Most of this seminar
focuses on the second
type of controversy - the debate between scientists on the role of
selection in the
evolution of human behaviour
We
begin with a series of videos showing that
the theory that animal species evolve is controversial. I encourage you
to view this
material before attending the seminar because it illustrates just how
sensitive this issue
is, even today. If you don't have a high speed internet connection,
borrow a pair of
headphones and use a campus computer to view the videos.
I have
included a section on work by
contemporary historians and philosophers of science which seeks to
unravel cultural
influences on Darwin's work. This should help you appreciate current
controversies over
evolutionary theory as a paradigm for psychology.
The
main thrust of this page is to consider
contemporary attacks on evolutionary psychology by biologists and
social scientists. I
have chosen two examples to illustrate the intensity of feeling sparked
by the claim that
some aspects of human behaviour may be the result of natural selection:
- a
debate between Rose and Pinker on where we came from, who we are now,
and where we are going,
- Gould
and Lewontin's classic 1979 paper on 'spandrels' and the 'Panglossian
paradigm'
I use
Gould's 1997 article in the New York
Review of Books :"Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", to illustrate
the raw
intensity of the debate. This article provoked a savage response from
Tooby and Cosmides -
you can judge the merits of both sides of the argument for yourself.
John Alcock's
response to Gould's attack is somewhat more restrained and alludes to
the four types of
question that can be asked about a behaviour. These were laid out by
Niko Tinbergen and I
have used them as a 'framework-of-sanity' in this module.
If you
want to delve deeper into this topic,
Brown (2000) and Ruse (1999) provide informative, revealing and
entertaining accounts of
the passions that are aroused by recent attempts to explain aspects of
human behaviour in
terms of natural selection.
We then
move on to consider a much more
carefully judged - but boldly titled - critique of evolutionary
psychology by Panksepp
& Panksepp: "The seven sins of evolutionary psychology". I
found plenty to
think about in this article.
Finally
at the end of the seminar we explore
just how difficult it is to construct a good theory by constructing our
own theory of the
evolution of behaviour.
Warm-up
exercises
These
'warm up exercises' are designed
to show you that you already have a reasonably clear understanding of
evolutionary
psychology by this stage of the module.

Klimt's 'Tree of Life'
|
Exercise# 1 Points to ponder
The
Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed animals as positioned along an
ascending linear scale (scala natura) with humans at
the top of the scale. Nowadays all biologists reject this linear
concept of species. It was firmly driven out of psychology by Hodos and
Campbell in their 1969 paper "Scala naturae: Why
there is no theory in comparative psychology." Nevertheless, I suspect
there are still remnants of the scala natura in the
popular imagination with a tendency to view humans as
'more-highly-evolved' in some way compared to the rest of the animal
kingdom. Do you think remnants of this type of thinking may subtly
influence attitudes to animal rights across species, race and social
class?: In a
famous English comedy sketch, a tall, upper-class John Cleese
looked down on a mid-height, middle-class Ronnie Barker, and they both
looked down on a small, lower-class Ronnie Corbett.
You might find it useful
to listen to this radio programme chaired by Melvyn
Bragg between Pinker, Richards and Gray in which they discuss if there
is really such a thing as human nature.
|

Michaelangelo's
David |


|
Exercise#
2 Questions to think about:
- Are
human beings animals?
- Have
modern humans evolved from chimpanzees?
- Jane
Goodall talks to the BBC about chimpanzees in this video
- the Scientific American
Frontiers video (2001) "Chimps Observed"
describes Goodall's work, gives very good reasons why you should
abscond from university ASAP, and mentions the issues raised by
scientific observations that may have direct implications for how we
view our own species.
- the
Scientific American Frontiers video (2001) "Chimp
Nations" discusses culture in chimps
- Scientific American
Frontiers video (1995) "Monkey See, Monkey
Do" discusses differences in imitation learning in primates
and humans
- Sir
Neil Chalmers lectures on "Monkeys and Apes:Are they nearly
human?" in this Darwin Centre: Natural History Museum video (2003)
- Do
human beings represent the 'end-point' of evolution?
- Has
human behaviour evolved?
- Will
people in the future be more intelligent, attractive, longer-lived,
less disease-prone etc?
- Will
authoritarian states evolve into democracies?
- Will
'primitive tribes' evolve? What does the phrase 'primitive tribe' mean?
- How
do you react to the words of the famous hymn:
"All
things bright and beautiful,
all creature great and small,
all
things wise and wonderful,
the
Lord God made them all."
|


|
Exercise# 3 Test your wits with the experts!
In
2002 the BBC broadcast a series of programmes entitled Human Instinct. The last programme
was followed by a studio debate that you can review online. The debate was chaired by
Joan Bakewell with contributions from Winston, Dunbar and Pembrey who
are clearly 'thinking on their feet' in response to viewers question on
the influence of 'nature and nurture' on human behaviour.
Imagine
that you are a TV researcher sitting in the control room with audio
contact between you and each of the studio experts. Your job is to
'feed' comments and suggestions to these experts as they respond to
viewers questions. How could you help our experts by drawing on your
knowledge of:
- 'preparedness';
- the influence of 'culture' on taste preferences;
- fear and the amygdala;
- the development of behaviour;
- gender differences and sexual selection;
- long and short-term mating strategies;
- self-sacrifice and altruism (a clue for the Vietnam
story may be contained in the phrase 'brothers in arms');
- the passions
raised by 'biological/genetic/nature' views of human behaviour;
- the conflict between religious and
evolutionary/biological views of human nature;
- the nature of proof
in the early
and later
stages of development of scientific theory;
There
are some good examples in this programme of the difficulties experts
can get into when trying to explain to a lay audience 'single case
behaviour-of-unknowable origin' questions which often take the form
"Why does my cat/dog/granny ...". In addition some questions refer to
very complex issues that are very difficult to answer in the
'quick-fire' style needed to create an interesting TV debate.
Could
you detect any issues that provoked tensions / grandstanding between
the panelists? One way to spot this is to imagine what the other
panelists might be thinking when one of them is responding to a
question.
You
can also watch Professor Robert Winston
answer viewers questions before the series "Human Instinct" was
broadcast on Breakfast TV on 22 October, 2002
|
Darwin's
theory of evolution in a nutshell
|

|
- Reading
Malthus' "An Essay on the Principle of Population",
Darwin was struck by the fact that all organisms produce considerably
more offspring than are needed to replace the parents. For example, a
pair of spawning salmon are estimated to produce 5,000 fertilized eggs,
if all these eggs developed into adult salmon our rivers would be
choked with salmon. Clearly there is massive mortality between egg and
adult organism.
- Despite
this tendency to a progressive increase in numbers, the numbers of a
given species remains more or less constant
- From
these two factors it follows that there is a 'struggle for existence' -
some offspring survive, others perish
- Offspring
are not 'carbon-copies' of their parents; there is widespread heritable
variation
- Darwin
suggested the novel idea that the fittest tend to survive, the unfit
perish
- Consequently
this leads to adaptive improvement over the generations - evolution
Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ):
|
|
The battle between creationism
and evolution
If you were educated in
a British school you are probably not aware that nowadays the teaching
of evolution is very controversial in some some American
states. Here is a set of videos that show that evolution was
born in controversy, and continues to arouse strong
feelings.
- Begin by reviewing
the PBS video Darwin: Reluctant Rebel in which
"James Moore explains that Darwin developed his theory of evolution by
natural selection at a time when creationism dominated the public
thinking. In this clip, Darwin is seen arguing for his theory with
creationist thinkers, including the H.M.S. Beagle's
Captain FitzRoy, his colleagues, and even with his own wife Emma.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett explains that humans naturally want to
believe that there is some purpose to the universe, and prefer to think
of themselves as "special," rather than just another species in the
animal kingdom. "
- View
the PBS video "Courtroom Controversy" which is available online in order to get
an insight into the long running battle between creationism ("the
religious doctrine that all living things on Earth were created
separately, in more or less their present form, by a supernatural
creator, as stated in the Bible") and evolutionary theory in America.
What is at stake is the right to teach evolutionary theory and
creationism in American schools.
- View the PBS video
"Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist" which is available online and gives a very
clear insight into creationist teaching in a religious context.
- View the PBS video
"Teaching Evolution Case Studies: Dealing with Controversy" which is available online and shows how
teachers have dealt with the controversy surrounding teaching evolution
in American schools in the last decade.
- Although teaching
children that plants and animals evolved has not generated widespread
controversy in British schools, Emmanuel College, Gateshead, was
recently in the news for teaching creationism to its pupils along with
evolution. This was the subject of a BBC radio programme
- Do you think children
should be taught evolution in British schools?
|
 |
Is
Darwin's theory free of 'cultural values'?
In recent years a
'Darwin industry' has developed involving historians attempting to
understand, unravel, and interpret the cultural influences on Darwin,
and Darwin's influence on culture. There is very clear coverage of the
cultural context, impact and scientific merits of Darwin's theory in:
- Bowler
(2000) "Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence", University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, Chapter 1 "The Problem of Interpretation".
- Patterson
(1999). Evolution, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, New York.
Chapter 14 "Proof and disproof; science and politics".
- Ruse
(1999). "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construct?".
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chapter 3 "Charles
Darwin"
When Darwin published
his theory of evolution in 1859 it generated less controversy than we
are sometimes led to believe. On the contrary, it was generally
welcomed. Darwin's theory did not come as a 'bolt out of the blue' to
an unsuspecting audience. In fact, Darwin was not alone in proposing a
theory of evolution. There were already several accounts of evolution,
but they were fundamentally different to Darwin's.
 |
Pre-Darwinian
theories postulated that evolution was the progressive unfolding of a purposeful
plan involving a linear trend of increasingly
complex species that culminated in the appearance of humans i.e. the
natural world was considered to be a scala natura. These were evolutionary theories - in the
sense that they rejected the picture of creation presented in the Book
of Genesis - but they allowed space for God to operate as the master
planner of a gradually improving world. But careful reading of Darwin's
theory shows that it does not admit a purposive plan, and does not
imply that humans occupy the highest rung on an evolutionary ladder.
Instead it suggests that the mechanism underlying evolution involves random
variation between individual members of a species being fed into a
filtering mechanism composed of environmental pressures.
Evolutionary
theories were welcomed by some in the mid nineteenth century; they
offered a progressive way forward for a society dominated by church and
aristocracy. But they were treated with suspicion by others because
they threatened to abolish the special place of Man in the natural
world, and disrupt a relatively stable social structure that had seen
fundamental political upheavals in nearby France. Perhaps Darwin's
theory of evolution was better adapted than others to survive in the
scientific and social environment that existed in England nearly 150
years ago.
|
Bowler suggests that in
1859 readers interpreted the main message of the Origin of
Species in line with the cultural beliefs of their
times:
- They paid little
attention to Darwin's theory that evolution relied on natural
selection as the mechanism for change, and focussed instead
on an evolution powered by Lamarkism, orthogenesis or a divine plan.
- They held to the
mistaken belief that evolution produced progress
along a preordained path as a result of "the struggle for existence"
and the "survival of the fittest", to attain the 'highest point' of
evolution - mankind.
Darwin
may have colluded with this misinterpretation to facilitate popular
acceptance of his theory. Ruse (1999) argues that Darwin believed in social
progress and this is increasingly evident in later revisions
of the Origin of Species. For example, in the third
edition published in 1861 he wrote that "natural selection clearly
leads towards highness" (see Ruse 1999, p69-70).
Furthermore,
Darwin seems influenced by the values of his social class, upbringing
and circle of acquaintances. Ruse points out that in Darwin's book on
human evolution - The Descent of Man - published in
1871, "Darwin brought in all of the cultural values of his sex, race
and class. Not only do we learn that men are string and brave and
brainy, whereas women are kind and gentle and sensitive; that whites
are intelligent and hardworking whereas blacks are stupid and lazy; but
that, on the whole, capitalism is no bad thing."
Darwin was highly
respected during his lifetime - both before and after publication of
the Origin of Species - and this is reflected in
his resting place: He was buried next to that other national scientific
hero, Sir Isaac Newton, in Westminster Abbey in 1882. And his fame lives on:
In 2002
Darwin was voted fourth in a poll of the most
important Britons of all time in a national survey organized by the BBC.
He was beaten by Churchill,
Brunel and Princess Diana.
But
you are now faced with a problem. Should you criticize Darwin's theory
because it was tainted by cultural factors from an earlier period of
our history? Or do you accept that Darwin, like all of us, is a product
of our time and culture, but nevertheless he had an important insight
into a reality that exists independently of time
and culture?
Reading
Ruse (1999) Chapter 1 "Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn: Two Theories of
Science" may help resolve this dilemma. The power of Ruse's (1999)
evaluation of Darwin's influence comes from his analysis of:
- the
epistemic values of Darwin's theory
together with a
- consideration
of non-epistemic factors surrounding evolutionary
theory
Epistemic
values or "scientific values" are a set of characteristics of
a scientific theory that reveals a reality that -
we assume - exists outside ourselves, and exists independently from us
(i.e.' truth'). Ruse draws on work by McMullin to draw up a list of
epistemic characteristics or "scientific values" which include:
- predictive
accuracy - the ability to forecast what we have not yet
observed
- internal
coherence - the various parts of the theory should not
contradict each other
- external
consistency - the theory should not contradict other accepted
theories, or 'laws of nature'
- unifying
power - the theory should bring together and explain
previously disparate areas of knowledge
- fertility
- the theory should generate novel hypotheses
- falsifiability
- it should be possible to construct hypotheses that could lead to the
rejection of the theory - this is an especially important scientific
value
- simplicity
and elegance - this is a value judgement i.e. it is a
subjective judgement made by scientists. Consequently simplicity is a
desired characteristic rather than a defining characteristic of a
scientific theory.
Non-epistemic
or "cultural values" factors refer to
- factors
in our culture that persuade us to construct a theory of reality based
on our cultural experiences
- the
feedback-influence of scientific theories on our culture
Here
is an example of theory
construction and the scientific method applied to a current problem. |
Examination
of the Darwin's life and times shows the influence of non-epistemic
cultural values on the genesis of his theory, and particularly its
development by his disciples. Furthermore, the epistemic qualities of
evolutionary theory has had a powerful feedback effect on cultural
values in the last century. For example, the use of metaphor such as
Dawkin's 'selfish genes', and value-laden phrases such as 'survival of
the fittest' (which was adopted by Darwin from Herbert Spencer), and
"the struggle for existence" have entered the popular imagination.
When
it was first published, Darwin's theory was not as epistemically strong
as it is now. Ruse provides a convincing case that Darwin's theory
contained several epistemic weaknesses:
- The
theory made few short-term predictions that could be objectively
measured to enable falsifiability
- Contemporary
estimates of the earth's age did not allow enough time for evolution to
have occurred
- Darwin
found it difficult to account for the evolution of sterile insects
- Darwin
did not provide a convincing explanation of how characteristics were
passed from generation to generation
- But
Darwin's theory triumphed in its ability to unify information from
separate areas of biology
- And.
We now know that the earth is older than first suspected. Mendel's work
provided the 'missing' mechanism for heredity.
Evolutionary
theory now forms the paradigm for the biological
sciences. A paradigm is a body of theory, results, methods, and set of
acceptable questions that are embraced by the vast majority of people
working in a particular discipline. It is a generally accepted way of
doing science (see Ruse 1999, p19). You may be wondering what paradigm
binds together all psychologists. I can't give you the answer.
I
started my undergraduate studies in Zoology, Physiology and Botany so
was immersed in the evolutionary paradigm from a tender age. But then I
switched to psychology where a favorite student-discussion question
used to be "Is psychology a science". I used to thoroughly enjoy
arguing with friends that 'psychology is a pre-paradigmatic junk yard
full of cognitive scrap metal'. Read about Thomas Kuhn's views on
scientific paradigms in Ruse Chapter 1 if you want to continue this
time-honored student drinking game.
Additional
reading:
- Kohn (2002) review of
"Charles Darwin: the power of place" by Janet Browne in The Independent
newspaper, 16 November 2002, available online
- Marr (2002) Darwin:
Andrew Marr's Greatest Briton broadcast by BBC TV. Video clip and web page supporting the
programme
|
Here is an example of theory
construction and the scientific method applied to a current problem.
In order to gain a deeper
understanding of contemporary evolutionary theory
you might find it useful to read parts of Colby
(1996) "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" in The Talk.Origins
Archive which is available online. You might like to
consider the following points which are covered in the first nine pages
of the article:

Kettlewell's study of moths is a controversial,
but oft-quoted, example of natural selection. (See
Wells (1999) "Second Thoughts about Peppered Moth", or use Google to find out more about the
controversy surrounding Kettlewell's research)
- Be aware that the word
evolution is often used to convey several different ideas.
- You have already
encountered examples of the impact of environmental
factors on phenotype
- The relationship between
organisms and their environments is complex; earthworms process soil;
humans tear down forests
- Evolution depends on genetic
variation. It is worthy taking the time to understand sources
of variation, the concept of alleles and how they change and interact.
- This simple spreadsheet
allows you to change the frequency of alleles at a locus and observe
the effects on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
- Explain, with examples,
the effects of natural selection on genetic variation.
- Are genes, groups, or
individuals selected?
- Does natural selection
favor behaviour that is beneficial to genes, groups or individuals?
- Explain the difference
between the way biologists use the words 'selfish' and altruistic', and
the way these words are used in everyday life.
- Does natural selection
lead to perfection?
- Does natural selection
work to a plan? If so, whose plan?
- What is the difference
between 'adaptation' and 'exaptation'?
- What is an animal fit
for?
- Why are females
attracted by secondary sexual characteristics?
Read
the section "The Development of Evolutionary Theory" in Colby (1996)
and consider the following points:
Lamark
|
- Compare and contrast Darwin and Lamark's view
of evolution. Lamark's ideas on evolution found favor in Russia under Stalin
in the 1930s and '40s because they meshed neatly with Marxism and
promised the birth of better citizens through parental striving to meet
the soviet ideal. According to the geneticist Lysenko the ability to
withstand harsh environments would be inherited from parent stock that
had been exposed to these conditions. (See Gaglioti (1996) The fate of
Soviet genetics).
- Why is the idea of 'blending inheritance'
wrong, and impossible to reconcile with evolution via natural
selection?
- Colby (1996) states that "Mendel mailed his paper to
Darwin, but Darwin never opened it". I don't know if this is true but
Mendel does not appear in Darwin's biography written by Desmond and
Moore (1991), and according to Boakes (1984) , Mendel's work on the
inheritance of the characteristics of peas was lost until 1900.
|
Stalin
|
Read
the section "Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics" in Colby
(1996). Do
you agree with Colby's dismissal of scientific creationism?
To what extent has human behaviour evolved?
|
Darwin was very
restrained
when he wrote the Origin of Species. It is only in
the final pages of the book - after he
had presented the theory of evolution of plants and animals by natural
selection - that he made his views on the evolution of human
behaviour clear: He wrote:
"In the distant future
I see
open fields for far more important researches. Psychology
will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of
each mental power and capacity by gradation."In
other words Darwin believed that human
behaviour was subject to natural and sexual
selection. It also suggests that Darwin was particularly interested in
humans and the evolution of human behaviour.
 Reading about Darwin, I
get the impression that these underlying interests were suppressed due
to the political and
social climate in which he lived ( e.g.
Abrams (2001) "Ideals of womanhood in Victorian Britain"available online)
|
Point
to ponder
View this video (authors@MIT 2002)
in which
Steven Pinker discusses his book "The Blank Slate: The
Modern Denial of Human Nature".
Do you think contemporary psychology is based on the
foundation anticipated by Darwin in 1859?
|
Pinker
|
And it's
not only in 19th century
England that Darwin's thoughts are considered shocking. As we shall see the application of this view
by evolutionary psychologists is not very popular with some
contemporary biologists and psychologists. Read the Pinker
vs. Rose debate which is available online and consider the
following points.
- What is the main
message in Pinker's book "How the Mind Works"?
- Are Pinker and Rose
creationists?
- Do Pinker and Rose
believe that the ways things are is the way things should be?
- Do Pinker and Rose
believe that our behaviour is a product of nature or nurture?
- What do Pinker and
Rose believe is the function of an individual's life?
- Do Pinker and Rose
believe that behaviour is controlled by a soul?
|
Rose
|
- What is reductionism?
- What does it mean to argue
that psychologists view perception as an adaptation?
- Has our perception of the
world evolved?
- Have our emotions evolved?
- What do you understand by
the term 'selfish gene'?
- Do genes cause
behaviour?
- Is all
our behaviour adaptive?
- What behaviours are not
adaptive? What behaviours have not evolved?
- Does a deterministic and
paternalistic biology prop up capitalism and patriarchy?
- Could evolutionary
psychology cause harmful political consequences?
- What is the place of
personal attacks in scientific debate?
- To what extent do Pinker
and Rose engage in personal attacks? - illustrate your answer with
appropriate quotations.
- Contrast Pinker and Rose's
view of 'mind'.
- Contrast Pinker and Rose's
view of 'love'
- Does Rose want to retain
the concept of humans as unique animals?
- Are we more than 'lumbering
robots' containing 'selfish genes'?
- .Rose introduces several terms to explain how "our lives
form a developmental trajectory, or lifeline." He rejects the terms
'nature' and 'nurture' because he believes they have come to represent
either/or categories of influence on development. He prefers the terms
'specificity' and 'plasticity'. The term specificity
refers to genetic influences that ensure the organism remains
unaffected by environmental factors. The term plasticity
refers to
an organism's ability to
react appropriately to its environment. In his own words "The crucial
thing is this. All living organisms have simultaneously both to be and
to become".( see The Pinker vs. Rose debate, Part 1 page 4)
After you have read Rose's argument, try to recast his explanation in
your own words, and illustrate his concepts with your own examples.
This may help you to understand his contribution to the debate. You may find it useful
to refer to Rose "Darwin, Genes and Determinism" on the BBC Evolution
website available online for a further insight
into Rose's criticisms of what he terms 'fundamental Darwinism'.
- What has Rose contributed
to the nature-nurture debate? Is he attacking a 'straw-man' version of
the debate?
- Does
evolutionary psychology offer us a picture of humanity as a collection
of adaptations produced by selfish genes brought together as
replication machines?
Read the reactions by
Pinker and Rose to each other's presentation ( see The Pinker vs. Rose
debate, Part 1 page 5) and consider the following points:
- Pinker writes "...I
don't understand what the point of Professor Rose's argument is." This
may be because Rose uses a number of unfamiliar terms (plasticity,
specificity, homeodynamics, autopoetic process etc.) that you have
encountered when I invited you to rephrase Rose's central point in your
own words (see above).
Can you help Professor Pinker out of his confusion?
- What
does Pinker mean by the term 'adaptationist program' / 'reverse
engineering'? It may help you to come back to this question again after
you have read the paper by Gould
and Lewontin. You might also like to consider how Rose might
react to this paper, and Gould's attack on evolutionary psychology in "Evolution: The Pleasure of
Pluralism"
This is a 'big issue' in contemporary critiques of
evolutionary psychology. I suspect it may lie at the root of the
disagreements between Pinker and Rose. Basically critics say that
evolutionary psychology is too keen to view all human behaviour as a
set of adaptations that have been shaped by natural
and sexual selection. The critics argue that there
may be some aspects of our behaviour that are not the products of these
processes which propel evolution. In other words everything we do has not
been designed to meet some demand in our environment.
Of course Pinker is aware of the points made by Gould and Lewontin on the
limits of adaptation, but he seems keen not to 'throw the baby out with
the bathwater' when he defends the insights that have been gained
through the adaptationist programme. Rose does acknowledge the advances
that have come from the adaptationist programme (e.g. perception and
the eye), but he is critical of applying this technique in other areas
e.g. 'love'.
- Rose
criticizes Pinker for suggesting that human psychology evolved to meet
conditions in the Stone Age. What is the Environment of Evolutionary
Adaptation (EEA) described by Cosmides and Tooby? Are Rose and Pinker
referring to the EEA, or have they been seduced by the catchy
phrase "Modern skulls house a stone age mind."?
- Do
you agree with Rose's criticism that evolutionary psychology confuses
metaphor, analogy and homology?
You may
find it useful to read Curry's response (
which is available online ) to the Roses'
attack on evolutionary psychology in their book "Alas, Poor Darwin"
published in 2000.
Curry
(2003) discusses
- the
usefulness of the adaptationist programme:
- in
predicting psychological mechanisms that have evolved to deal with
problems faced with our ancestors,
- and
explaining peculiarities of human psychology
- the
possibility of evolutionary changes in human behaviour since the end of
the Stone Age
- evolutionary
psychologists view of how environmental pressures might interact with
underlying human 'universals' to produce variation in behaviour across
cultures
- the
Roses' criticisms of Daly and Wilson's work on children's risk of abuse
from step-parents
- Steven
Rose's earlier claim that evolutionary psychology harks back to the
politicization of science by supporters of eugenics
The Spandrels
of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the
Adaptationist Programme
Stephen Jay Gould obituary
|
Obtain a copy of Gould
and Lewontin (1979). "The Spandrels of San Marco and the
Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme."
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No
1161, pp. 581-598, available online
This is a complex paper written by biologists for
biologists, and may not be easily understood by scientists without a
first / higher degree in biology. We will concentrate on those parts of
the paper that formed the basis for Gould's attack on evolutionary
psychology.
|
Richard Lewontin
|
What do the terms
'spandrel' and 'Panglossian paradigm' in the paper's title mean?
Spandrel
(or pendentive) is the triangular area between two curved arches in
buildings. These areas are often used to house elaborate paintings or
carvings which are precisely designed to fit into the available space.
It is obvious that these decorations have been placed within spandrels
to cover an otherwise bare section of the buildings. No one would argue
that the building was constructed with curved arches in order to leave
spandrels that could be decorated. The spandrel arises because of an
architectural constraint. The spandrel is a
consequence of the way the building was constructed. A spandrel
provides a blank area for an artist to exercise their imagination. Here
are examples of that exercise of imagination: image 1;
image 2
Gould and Lewontin argue
that features of an animal's body and behaviour may have developed for
the same reason as spandrels. These spandrel-features are consequences
of true adaptations of the animal's body and behaviour which truly
evolved under the pressures of natural and sexual selection.
Panglossianism
refers to the search for an adaptive reason for every
aspect of an animal's behaviour. Panglossianism ignores the possibility
that some features of body and behaviour may be spandrels. Gould and
Lewontin detected traces of Panglossianism in evolutionary psychology.
Panglossianism is named after Dr Pangloss, an eternal optimist in
Voltaire's book Candide. He believed that
everything was for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.
Panglossian explanations are simply the exercise of creative
imagination over careful experimental investigation, for example our
noses evolved to support spectacles as we grow older; earlobes evolved
to support earrings, or benzodiazepine receptors evolved in the brain
so that anti-anxiety drugs such as Librium and Valium would have
somewhere to attach to. |
Voltaire
|
In the paper find
Section 5. "A Partial Typology of Alternatives to the Adaptationist
Programme": Go to the last paragraph of Subsection 3 "The decoupling of
selection and adaptation", and read the paragraph beginning
"Adaptation" - the good fit of organisms to their environment - ..."
This paragraph contains the essence of Gould and Lewontin's criticism
of Sociobiology (the forerunner of evolutionary psychology. Look up
'adaptation' in the glossary
of this page.
- How does the glossary
definition of adaptation differ from that provided by Gould and
Lewontin?
- Explain
what Gould and Lewontin mean by the terms:
- physiological
adaptation
- cultural
adaptation
- Darwinian
adaptation
- What
is the role of genes in cultural adaptation?
Read the abstract at the
start of Gould and Lewontin's paper and consider the following points:
- What is the cardinal
feature of the 'adaptationist programme?
- Think
back to the debate between Rose and Pinker - to what extent are Rose
and Gould adaptationists? To what extent are their differences of
opinion related to their relative commitment to the adaptationist
programme?
- What
impact could these differences of opinion between scientists make on
the tension between creationists and teachers of evolutionary theory in
American education?
- Do
you think the behaviour of animals should be analyzed as an 'integrated
whole', or as a series of modular traits.? What approach would be
favored by Rose and Pinker?
- Are
there viable alternatives to 'adaptive stories' to act as a basis for
research designed to understand human and animal behaviour?
Feel free to read the
rest of Gould and Lewontin's paper. Do not be put off if there are
unfamiliar biological terms. Remember that the paper is directed at
biologists who use the adaptationist programme to guide their research
in areas you will not have encountered before, and do not relate
directly to evolutionary psychology (e.g. tyrannosaurus legs). Here are
some highlights:
- In the Introduction, the
criticism of Harare's explanation of Aztec human sacrifice as a source
of protein - I think I tend to agree with Gould and Lewontin - this
does look like a spandrel.
- In
section 2 "The adaptationist programme", the authors provide a very
clear exposition of what they consider to be over-exploitation of the
explanatory power of natural selection.
- Is
there a parallel between what biologists call 'traits' and the
'modules' studied by evolutionary psychologists? What message do Gould
and Lewontin have for these psychologists?
- In
Section 3 "Telling Stories" do you agree with the criticism of Barash's
study of aggression in mountain bluebirds?
- In
Section 2 "The Master's Voice Re-examined" the authors invoke Darwin's
words to support their attack on the adaptationist programme. Do you
think that Darwin's words "I am convinced that natural selection has
been the main, but not the exclusive means of modification" indicates
that he would have supported Gould and Lewontin's arguments? Can you
think of an alternative explanation for Darwin's outburst?
- In
Section 5 "A Partial Typology of Alternatives to the Adaptationist
Programme" Gould and Lewontin present several ways in which an animal's
form, function and behaviour could arise independently of adaptation
based on natural selection. There first example involves 'genetic
drift' - a situation in which there is no adaptation and no
selection.
Here is a little story I
tell myself to explain genetic drift and Gould and Lewontin's critique
of the adaptationist programme:
Two rats with short corkscrew
tails met, fell in love, and decided to elope. They boarded a cruise
liner and disembarked onto an uninhabited island where they wed and
prospered. After that, ships seldom visited the island which was
overrun with rats.
Several years later two adaptationists visited and pondered ....
Eventually they stopped an inhabitant and - pointing to his tail -
asked "What's it for?".
"Nothing, great-grandfather and great-grandmother were born this way
and there seems no good reason to abandon tradition" came the reply.
Missing the point, the scientists stayed and the island is now
populated by men with long beards and women in blue stockings who
wander about pointing at this and that asking, "What's it for?".
Recently, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the island's
university ordered several cases of fine wine - he has an idea !
Well, it makes sense to
me ...
Read Section 6 "Another,
and Unfairly Maligned, Approach to Evolution" in Gould and Lewontin.
- How do you think this
section relates to the points raised by Rose in his debate with Pinker?
- What
do you think Pinker would make of the issue raised by Gould and
Lewontin?
- Do
you agree with Gould and Lewontin's conclusion that "Too often, the
adaptationist programme gave us an evolutionary biology of parts and
genes, but not of organisms", do you think this criticism extends to
evolutionary psychology?
If you have persisted with
this set of readings you should now be in a good position to appreciate
the sometimes vicious exchanges between Gould and a number of leading
evolutionary psychologists.
You should have
sufficient background knowledge to appreciate Gould
(1997) "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", New York Review of
Books, June 26, 1997 which is available
online. As
you work through the article you could retain the following issues in
mind:
- Bear in mind that you
are reading a newspaper article. You are unlikely to come across such a
vitriolic attack in a scientific journal. This is one reason why you
should scan newspapers for book reviews etc. to get a feel for how
scientists really feel about things, but which they would never be
allowed to say in a peer-reviewed journal article. There is also a
steady stream of very good popular science books appearing on the
market. I know these are expensive on a student budget. Scour the
second-hand bookshops for them - I do!
- You
may be puzzled by references to 'punctuated equilibrium'. This
controversial theory was introduced by Gould to explain the emergence
of new species. You can read about it in Colby
(1996), or skip these section - as far as I know it doesn't figure
strongly in the evolutionary psychology literature, nor in the
evolution literature (see Ruse,1999, p151).
- If
you are in a hurry omit paragraphs 11-18
- What
is the difference between 'ultra-Darwinian fundamentalists' and
'pluralists'? Draw up a list of names of authors you have read on this
module and see if they fit under one, or the other, category.
- Would
regarding reading and writing as 'spandrels' benefit or harm students
of evolutionary psychology?
- Is
Dennett's attack on spandrels justified?
- Is
the search by evolutionary psychologists for adaptations in a long-past
environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) unscientific guesswork?
- Have
we come full-circle, is there a similarity between evolutionary
psychologists and fundamental Christians in their adherence to faiths?
- What
aspects of evolutionary psychology does Gould accept?
- Is
there a role for Lamarkian evolution in the explanation of culture?
- Is
culture an ornament on a brain spandrel? If it is, what are the
implications for psychology? Should psychologists study the ornaments
on spandrels, or focus their attention on the surrounding arches?
Read Tooby
and Cosmides (1997). Letter to the Editor of New York Review
of Books on Stephen Jay Gould's "Darwinian Fundamentalism" (June 12,
1997) and "Evolution: The
Pleasure of Pluralism", (June 26, 1997) available online
- The first paragraph
contains one of the most vicious personal attacks I have ever - or ever
want to - read on a colleague. (The
letter was not published in the New York Review of Books
(Brown, 1999, p 150) - presumably it was judged too vitriolic, but it
is available on the internet)
- The
authors mount a spirited defense of their own work against Gould's
criticism that evolutionary psychologists adopt an uncritical
adaptationist programme in their research.
- The
authors argue that far from searching for Panglossian explanations of
known human behaviours, evolutionary psychologists use the concept of
an EEA to predict features of the brain that we do not
already know about. This is a very powerful rebuttal of the "Just so
story" / Pangloss criticism of evolutionary psychology mounted by Gould
and others. Having talked to some psychologists about evolutionary
psychology, I agree with Tooby and Cosmides comment that the "Just so
story" criticism has reached the level of 'urban myth'.
Read
Alcock (2000). "Misbehavior: How Stephen Jay Gould
is wrong about evolution. Boston review, April/May 2000 (available online) for a
response to Gould and Lewontin's attack on the adaptationist programme
by an evolutionary psychologist / sociobiologist.
Here are some points for
you to consider:
Alcock accuses Gould of
favoring 'proximate explanations' over explanations based adaptive or
reproductive value of behaviour. Does Tinbergen's explanation of the
four ways that the question "Why ?" can be posed provide a way out of
this controversy? |
 |
 |
You are probably
familiar with the fact that the clitoris and glans penis develop from
the same tissue under the influence of hormones. Is it worth exploring
an adaptive function for female orgasm?
Can
you point to any advances in understanding human behaviour that have
been made by evolutionary psychologists utilizing the adaptationist
programme?
|
Acquire
a copy of Buss et al. (1998).
"Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels", local copy available here. This is an
extremely well written and useful paper. I found it helped to read
pages 533-539 even though it reviews material we have encountered
already. Alternativly, you may want to begin at the section
"Exaptations and Spandrels" on page 539
- Pages
533-535 of this paper present a very clear account of the roles of
natural selection, sexual selection and inclusive fitness in evolution.
- Pages 535-537 cover adaptations and by-products
of adaptations - what they are and how they are influenced by
ontogenetic events, mutation, the environment of evolutionary
adaptedness, and random factors.
- Pages 538-539 discusses several factors that constain
adaptation.
- Page 539 explains the concept of exaptation
- Buss et al (1998) claim that Gould uses the term exaptation
in two ways. Explain in your own words the critical difference between
Gould's two uses of the term.
- In this article do Buss et al use the term exaptation to
refer to a functional or functionless
mechanism? Be very careful, be very,very careful to get this straight
in your head before proceeding! The answer is 'functional', but ensure
you know why this is the answer.
- Explain with an example what Buss et al mean by a
co-opted adaptation.
- Is a co-opted adaptation an exaptation?
- What is a 'spandrel'? Is it an
exaptation or a co-opted adaptation? The answer is that it is an
exaptation but it is not a co-opted adaptation, but can you explain
why?
- Buss et al (1998) use the term co-opted
spandrel instead of Gould's term spandrel. Do you think
this linguistic-balance innovation helps clarification?
- Make a list of the spandrels put forward by Gould to help
you appreciate the breadth of behaviours Gould considers to be
functionless. If Gould is correct in his analysis, what is the
consequence for evolutionary psychology?
- Explain the difference between the use of the term adaptive
by evolutionary biologists and in everyday speech.
- Must all exaptations/adaptations increase the fitness of an
organism in its present environment?
- If a person uses his hands to play tennis and his brain to
solve anagrams in a newspaper, does this mean that the brain and the
hand have not evolved? Or do tennis playing and anagram solving involve
co-opting evolved mechanisms?
- How would you test the hypothesis that religion is an
exaptation?
- Is it worthwhile distinguishing between an adaptation and
an exaptation?
- Is natural selection important in the emergence and
persistence of exaptations/ co-opted adaptations / co-opted spandrels?
If so,why?
- Is the theory evolutionary psychology characterised by a
set of epistemic values?
- Can evolutionary psychology predict useful novel adaptions
that might evolve in the future?
- Can evolutionary psychology do more than generate research
papers and grant applications?
- If youve reached this far pour yourself a gin and tonic,
fire up the PlayStation or indulge in your favoutite vice - you deserve
it!
-
-
If you want to delve
deeper into this topic, Brown (2000), Ruse (1999) and Morris (2001)
provide informative, revealing and entertaining accounts of the
passions that are aroused by recent attempts to explain aspects of
human behaviour in terms of natural selection.
"The seven sins of evolutionary psychology"
 |
Read Panksepp
& Panksepp (2000). "The seven sins of evolutionary
psychology". Evolution and Cognition, vol. 6 no 2, 108-131 which is available online.
This
is an important paper because it goes beyond the type of criticism of
evolutionary psychology you have come across already. For example, some
commentators argue that evolutionary psychology relies on 'Just so'
stories. The Panksepps put forward the potentially more fruitful
criticism that evolutionary psychology tends to be 'anthropocentric'
and ignores research carried out on other mammals.
|
As you read the paper
consider the following issues:
- Do you think the picture
of the 'businessman' exemplifies the approach to evolutionary
psychology advocated by the Panksepps? What type of approach to
understanding animal behaviour does the picture represent?
- Can
you think of examples of "special-purpose, genetically-dedicated
circuits for various emotions and motivations in subcortical regions
shared by all mammals"?
- How
do these circuits differ from the modules studied by evolutionary
psychologists?
- Describe,
with the aid of an example, 'inclusive fitness'.
- Is
it necessary to speculate about the environment of evolutionary
adaptedness (EEA) to discover modules?
- Why
do you think psychology largely ignored biology during the 20th century?
- What
is meant by the term 'tabula rasa'? What has been
the significance of this term in psychology?
- "Behaviour
controlled by subcortical areas of the brain is the subject matter of
evolutionary psychobiology. Behaviour controlled by cortical areas of
the brain is the subject matter of evolutionary psychology." Discuss
- What
are the roles of cortical and subcortical areas in fear? (Consider work
by LeDoux).
- Explain
with examples the terms: 'spandrel' and 'exaptation'
- Describe
the role of Broca's and Wernicke's areas in language. (You may need to
do some further research for this question.)
Explain MacLean's
concept of a 'triune brain'.
- List
several motivations and emotions shared by rats and humans. What is the
consequence of this similarity for evolutionary psychobiology?
- How
do Panksepp and Panksepp view the evolution of 'mind' in mammals?
- To
what extent would evolutionary psychology benefit by incorporating
research conducted by comparative psychologists?
- "Evolutionary
psychology does not go far enough backwards in evolutionary time to
discover the roots of human behaviour." Discuss
- Is
concentration on human behaviour a strength or weakness of evolutionary
psychology?
- What
is the place of 'animal models' in evolutionary psychology and
evolutionary psychobiology?
- What
is the place of 'computer models of the brain' in evolutionary
psychology and evolutionary psychobiology?
- What
does the term 'modular' mean? What aspects of behaviour are ' modular'?
Give a list of behaviours you consider to be modular.
- To
what extent do studies of the relationship between neurotransmitter
systems and behaviour provide "...a suitable foundation for brain/mind
theorizing in evolutionary psychology."? (Panksepp & Panksepp,
page 120 par. 2)
- How
do studies of the biological bases of social attachment relate to
inclusive fitness?
- What
is the 'developmentalist challenge' to evolutionary psychology?
- Are
brain imaging studies creating a modern phrenology?
- What
are 'transgenerational effects', and what is their significance for
evolutionary psychology?
- Is
present day psychology too anthropocentric?
Evaluation of
evolutionary psychology as a theory of human behaviour
You
have now been exposed to a considerable body of discussion, comment and
argument about the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary psychology
as a paradigm for psychology. Now may be a good
time to step back from all the detail and ask a simple question:
Do Cosmides and Tooby provide a
evolutionary psychology a good theory
of human behaviour?
You
have already
seen that Ruse (1999) distinguishes between two characteristics of a
theory:
- the
epistemic or 'scientific values' values of
a theory
- the
non-epistemic or 'cultural values' of a
theory
Epistemic
values or "scientific values" are a set of characteristics of
a theory that reveals a reality that - we assume -
exists outside ourselves, and exists independently from us (i.e.'
truth'). Ruse draws on work by McMullin to draw up a list of epistemic
characteristics or "scientific values" which include:
- predictive
accuracy - the ability to forecast what we have not yet
observed
- internal
coherence - the various parts of the theory should not
contradict each other
- external
consistency - the theory should not contradict other accepted
theories, or 'laws of nature'
- unifying
power - the theory should bring together and explain
previously disparate areas of knowledge
- fertility
- the theory should generate novel hypotheses
- falsifiability
- it should be possible to construct hypotheses that could lead to the
rejection of the theory - this is an especially important scientific
value
- simplicity
and elegance - this is a value judgement i.e. it is a
subjective judgement made by scientists. Consequently simplicity is a
desired characteristic rather than a defining characteristic of a
scientific theory.
How
do you think evolutionary psychology measures up against these criteria?
Non-epistemic or "cultural values" factors refer to
- factors
in our culture that persuade us to construct a theory of reality based
on our cultural experiences
- the
feedback-influence of scientific theories on our culture
Do
you think cultural values have helped shape evolutionary psychology?Do
you think evolutionary psychology will shape culture?Do you think there
are any similarities between the genesis and early development of
Darwin's evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology?
|
The Theory of Evolutionary
Psychobiology
This section gives an
insight into just how hard it is to construct an evolutionary theory of
behaviour. Lets try to construct a novel theory by returning to the
basic ideas used by Darwin in his theory of evolution:
- animals are grouped into
species;
- species
are characterized by within-species variation;
- species
evolve through natural and sexual selection.
Our theory - let's call
it evolutionary psychobiology to distinguish it from evolutionary
psychology - suggests that the principles that govern the evolution,
development and expression of different behavioural
modules are identical to the principles that govern the
evolution, development and expression of different species.
Let us for the sake of
argument make two assumptions:
- behavioural modules are
subject to the same laws of nature as species;
- behavioural
modules co-exist in a brain in the same way that species live together
in ecosystems.
What we know
about species |
What we
theorize about behavioural modules |
Species have a physical
reality which enables them to be distinguished from each other. |
Behavioural modules have
a physical reality involving cells and neurotransmitter systems within
the brain, but at present are most easily distinguished from each other
in terms of their behavioural 'output' e.g eating and fighting are the
products of discrete behavioural modules. However, modules can impart a
'quality' to behaviour e.g. ritualization (BBC, 2003, Ritual). |
Several discrete species
make up an ecosystem |
Several discrete
behavioural modules make up a brain and nervous system. |
Similar but discrete
ecosystems contain the same species e.g. it is reasonable to assume
that a 10 acre field one mile east of my village contains the same
biodiversity as a 10 acre field one mile west. |
Similar but discrete
individuals contain the same behavioural modules e.g it is reasonable
to assume that you and I eat, drink, sleep and occasionally make love. |
Individual members of a
species show variation as a result of the continuous influence of
genetic, environmental and random factors. |
An individual's
behavioural modules vary as the result of the influence of genetic,
environmental and random factors on the continuous development of each
behavioural module. |
Species evolve through
natural and sexual selection. |
Behavioural modules
evolve through natural and sexual selection |
Species can evolve
independently of other species |
Behavioural modules can
evolve independently of other behavioural modules |
Species can co-evolve
with other species |
Behavioural modules can
co-evolve with other behavioural modules |
Species are discrete,
but can interact with each other e.g. sharks and cleaner fish are
discreet species but they interact |
Behavioural modules are
discrete, but can interact with each other e.g. eating depends on
eye-hand co-ordination. |
The functioning of a
particular species may be dependant on the normal functioning of other
species e.g. a decline in prey may lead to a decline in predators |
The functioning of a
particular behavioural module may be dependant on the normal
functioning of other co-dependent behavioural modules e.g fear may lead
to a decline in sexual motivation |
We can control the
impact of a particular species within an ecosystem e.g. pest control. |
We can potentially
control the influence of behavioural modules through psychological
and/or physical intervention. |
Serious depletion of a
species within an ecosystem has unpredictable effects and may
destabilize it. |
Serious disruption of a
behavioural module may have unpredictable effects that interfere with
the overall functioning of the individual e.g the impact of Parkinson's
disease. |
How good is this theory if we judge it against
Ruse's epistemic and non-epistemic values.
I am not convinced that our theory is fertile or falsifiable in its
present form. But this may be a good thing because we can address these
issues in the seminar.
The theory of evolutionary psychobiology is
clearly fundamentally different to the SSSM (standard social science
model) and it also differs from Cosmides and Tooby's evolutionary
psychology. Here is a 'straw man' comparison of evolutionary psychology
and evolutionary psychobiology to get the debate started.
Consider each area of interest/ type of
evidence. If you can find examples / omissions / counterexamples to
contradict my prejudices, bring them along to the seminar.
Area
of interest / type of evidence |
Evolutionary
psychology |
Evolutionary
psychobiology |
cognition |
principle focus of
research |
'one amongst many'
rather than 'first amongst equals' |
motivation |
secondary
interest |
considered
on an equal footing with cognition and emotion |
emotion |
secondary interest |
considered on an equal
footing with cognition and motivation |
animal
models |
not
utilized |
very
important as evolutionary psychobiology does not distinguish between
humans and other animals |
computer models of the
brain |
utilized |
not utilized at present
but may prove useful |
modularity |
cognitive
behaviours are modular |
all
behaviours are modular. |
role of neurochemical
systems |
not considered |
major importance:
- neurochemistry
& neuroanatomy of reward
- neurochemistry
& neuroendocrinology of fear/anxiety , depression, aggression
|
role
of ontogeny |
not
considered |
very
important, maturation and maturational experiences contribute to the
development of behavioural modules and promote individual differences
between animals |
sex differences |
important |
important |
individual
differences |
not
considered (? to avoid controversy over e.g. IQ?) |
important,
they provide a window onto the influence of genetic, environmental and
random factors on the continuous development of behavioural modules. |
human 'universals' |
important |
important; their
variability is acknowledged |
random
factors |
not
considered |
very
important, random factors contribute to the development of behavioural
modules and thus individual differences between animals |
Environment
of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA) |
important |
acknowledges
that behaviour evolved in an environment, but the environment extends
much further back in time than the point at which humans emerged. |
Glossary
- Adaptations are
characteristics that have developed during evolution through the
mechanisms of natural selection and/or sexual selection. Adaptations
are thought to have a genetic basis and therefore pass down the
generations. Adaptive features confer reproductive success on
individuals that possess them.
- Analogous
structures are similar but they do not have a common evolutionary
origin
- Anthropomorphism
refers to giving animals human motives and emotions. This can lead to
great fiction (e.g. Beatrix Potter) but poor science.
- Convergent
evolution refers to the evolution of analogous structures in
unrelated species subjected to similar environmental demands
- Exaptations
are characteristics that originally evolved to perform one function but
later performed another. For example, bird wings originally evolved as
limbs to support walking.
- Homologous
structures are similar because they have a common evolutionary origin
- 'Just so stories'
refer to creative evolutionary accounts that cannot be tested. Gould
was inspired to make this criticism of some evolutionary psychology by
Rudyard Kipling's book that contained fantastical accounts of how
animals got to be the way they are.
- Lamarkism:
the - now discredited - belief that evolution occurs because offspring
inherit characteristics from their parents which were acquired during
their lifetimes. For example, a baby giraffe is born with the ability
to reach leaves on the top of trees because its parents learnt to
collect leaves from there.
- Orthogenesis:
the - now discredited - belief that evolution occurs because of a
predetermined life force that brings about progress towards 'higher
forms' of life.
- Panglossianism
is the search for an adaptive reason for every aspect of an animal's
behaviour. This criticism of evolutionary psychology was made by Gould
and Lewontin who were reminded of a character - Dr Pangloss, an eternal
optimist in Voltaire's book Candide - who believed that everything was
for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. Panglossian
explanations are simply the exercise of creative imagination over
careful experimental investigation, for example our noses evolved to
support spectacles as we grow older;earlobes evolved to support
earrings, or more seriously benzodiazepine receptors evolved in the
brain so that anti-anxiety drugs such as Librium and Valium would have
somewhere to attach to.
- Spandrel:
- This term was
originally an architectural term for the roughly triangular wall space
between two adjacent arches.
- Gould and Lewontin used
the term spandrel for a nonadaptive by-product of evolution . For
example the human belly button serves no adaptive function; it is a
by-product of the umbilical cord.
- 'Straw man'
exaggerating or presenting a caricature of an opponents position /
argument so that it appears ridiculous and can be easily dismissed.
References
and online resources
- Abrams
(2001) "Ideals of womanhood in Victorian Britain" on the BBC History
site, available online
- Alcock (2000). "Misbehavior: How Stephen
Jay Gould is wrong about evolution. Boston review, April/May 2000, available online
- authors@MIT (2002) Steven
Pinker discusses "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"
October 31, 2002 available online. The video length
length is 1:52:2, Pinker begins at 10:55
- Barrett, et al. (2002). Human
Evolutionary Psychology , Palgrave.
- BBC Jane Goodall talks to the
BBC about chimpanzees video available online
- BBC
(2002) "Series: In our
Time" radio programme chaired
by Melvyn Bragg between Pinker, Richards and Gray in which they discuss
if there really is such a thing as human nature.
- BBC Radio Four (2003),
'Ritual' radio programme in which Dr Gillian Rice looks at human and
animal rituals, audio available online
- BBC Four
(2002). "Human Instinct" propgramme website
- BBC
Four (2002)."Breakfast
TV" interview based on viewers questions to Robert Winston before
"Human Instinct" was transmitted. Interview broadcast
on on 22 October, 2002
- BBC Four (2002).
"Human Instinct" Programme 5 - Debate broadcast on Wednesday 13
November 2002, 10-10.30pm
- BBC
(2002). "The Long View", radio programme broadcast on
Tuesday, 9 April 2002, (includes a contribution from Richard Dawkins
discussing creationism and education in familiar combative style.)
- Boakes
(1984). From Darwin to behaviourism. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
- Bowler
(2000) "Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence", University of
Cambridge, Cambridge
- Brown
(2000). "The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man".
Touchstone/ Siman and Schuster, London.
- Buss,
DM. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
- Buss, D.M., Haselton, M.G., Shackelford,
T.K., Bleske, A., & Wakefield, J.C. (1998).
Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53,
533-548. local copy available here
Chalmers
(2003) "Monkeys and Apes:Are they nearly human?" Lecture from
the Darwin Centre: Natural History Museum video available online - Colby
(1996) "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" in The Talk.Origins
Archive, available online
- Cosmides
& Tooby (1997). Evolutionary Psychology: A
Primer, available online
- Curry
(2003). Evolutionary psychology: "fashionable ideology" or "new
foundation"? Human Nature Review. 3: 81-92. available online
- Desmond and
Moore (1991). Darwin, Penguin Group, London
- Darwin, On
the Origin of Species (1859). Available online
- Gaglioti
(1996) "The fate of Soviet genetics", World Socialist Web Site, available online
- Goodenough, McGuire and Wallace (2001)
Perspectives on Animal Behavior, 2nd Edition, Wiley, New York.
- Gould
(1997) "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", New York Review of
Books, June 26, 1997, available
online
- Gould
and Lewontin (1979). "The Spandrels of San Marco and the
Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptionist Programme."
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No
1161, pp 581-598, available online
- Hodos
and Campbell (1969). "Scala naturae:
Why there is no theory in comparative psychology." Psychological
Review, 1969, 76, 337-350.
- Morris
(2001) "The Evolutionists: the struggle for Darwin's soul", Freeman,
New York.
- Panksepp
& Panksepp (2000). The seven sins of
evolutionary psychology. Evolution and Cognition, vol 6 no 2, 108-131. Available
online.
- Patterson
(1999).
Evolution, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, New York.
- PBS
(2001) video "Courtroom Controversy" available online
- PBS
(2001) video "Teaching
Evolution Case Studies: Dealing with Controversy" available online
- PBS
(2001) video Darwin:
Reluctant Rebel available online
- PBS
(2001)"Ken Ham: Biblical
Literalist" available online
- Pinker vs. Rose
debate on evolutionary psychology held at London University's Institute
of Education under the sponsorship of Dillon's and The London Times available online
- Rose
"Darwin, Genes and Determinism" on the BBC Evolution website available online
- Hilary
Rose and Steven Rose (2000). "Alas, Poor Darwin:
Arguments against evolutionary psychology". London, Jonathan Cape, 2000
- Ruse
(1999). "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construct?".
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
- Scientific
American Frontiers (1995) "Monkey See, Monkey Do" video available here
- Scientific
American Frontiers (2001) "Chimps Observed" video available online
- Scientific
American Frontiers (2001) "Chimp Nations:
Differences among chimp groups suggest chimpanzees have cultures, too.
How are complex traditions passed down through generations? video avalable online
- Tooby
and Cosmides (1997). Letter to the Editor of New York Review
of Books on Stephen Jay Gould's "Darwinian Fundamentalism" (June 12,
1997) and "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", (June 26,
1997) available online
- Wells
(1999) Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths, available
online
Supplementary
reading
Hieronymus Bosch,
painted The Seven Deadly Sins.
The picture contains a painted rectangle with a central image of the
eye of God, with Christ watching the world. The Seven
Deadly Sins, depicted through scenes of worldly
transgression, are arranged around the circular shape.
- The Across-Species Comparisons and
Psychopathology Society (ASCAP) publish research on the
interface between psychopathology and evolution.
- The ASCAP Bulletin, Volume 2 No 3,
pages 13-16, August 2001 contains abstracts of several reactions to the
Panksepps' Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology article. A local
copy is available
- Geoffrey Miller
home page
Copyright Dr.
C.A.P. Kenyon 1994-2006