Evolutionary Psychology:
An Essay
This essay is specially focused to elucidate the ongoing debate around the evolutionary theory and its place in the psychological sciences (not that its uselessness is overly contested, but various critiques have come light continue to present across the years). I hope you guys find this essay engaging and informative!
...
 |
| The Evolution of Man [http://feministsforchoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/post-one.jpg] |
BEGINNING
In the conclusion of the 19th century English naturalist, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species the
following statement appears: "In the distant future I see... [p]sychology... based on a
new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and
capacity by gradation."[1] Darwin’s assertion
prophesied a paradigm shift within the field of psychology – a field governed
by a new way of thinking: A cognitive
evolutionary revolution. It was thirty years later that William James’
highly influential book, Principles of
Psychology, began to take part in such a revolution with the concept of
“instincts” focused upon in great depth via the implementation of a theoretical
frame of thought perpetuated in the Darwinian fashion.[2] To James 'instincts' referred to "specialized neural circuits that are common to every member of a
species and are a product of that species’ evolutionary history"[3] – a contention that
actuated that which Darwin proposed thirty years prior to James' publication.
It
was Darwin’s 'prophesy' (if you will), and James’ expansion on the evolutionary
theory that gave rise to the scientific field of sociobiology. Biomathematician
Charles J. Lumsden and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson described sociobiology as
follows: "The systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social
behaviour, including sexual behaviour and parent-offspring interaction, in all
kinds of organisms."[4] Australian philosopher
Michael Dix expands upon the latter with an example: "[In sociobiology] altruism...
arose... because a gene which gives its bearer a tendency to aid genetically close relatives will thereby
tend to increase its own frequency of representation in the gene pool."[5] In essence, social
behaviour is a product of natural selection and random mutations, and it is
the aim of the scientist to explain such behaviour in
evolutionary terms.[6]
CULTURAL CRITICISM
Sociobiology
however did not escape criticism. For example, after the publication of Edward
O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology: The New
Synthesis, accusations of racism and sexism along with other injustices and
inequalities were brought forth. Many were not in favour of Wilson’s view of
sociobiology due to various assertions of his such as that lthe Western social systems
are biologically innate"[7], thereby justifying (in a
sense) the injustices that are scattered in society and culture.[8] However, those that
favoured the field of sociobiology denied the allegations of the critics "that
their science is mere right-wing ideology by another name"[9] and made reference to
researchers such as the Russian evolutionary theorist, Peter Kropotkin (1902), who
held that in the evolution of a species:
mutual protection... is obtained... [thus leading to] the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, [the ability to] secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution.[10] (p. 155)
This
citation is important as a response to criticism due to its proactive approach
to the development of society in a macro sense. For example, via use of the
evolutionary theory Kropotkin identified the evolution of the group due to
mutual interpersonal protection, thereby providing the critics with a
biological-theoretical foundation of social development. That is, however a
society plays out is in accordance with the evolution of the social behaviour
of individuals, and inequality as a sub-structure in society may merely be a
by-product of the society.
MODULES
John B. Watson in his behaviourist tradition[11] aimed to take the evolutionary theory even further than James, applying it to the psychology of all human behaviour. Watson attempted to separate psychology from its philosophical foundations by eliminating the concept of the mind, and attempting to understand the human being only in terms of what is actually observable.[12] Watson disagreed with James’ contention regarding the 'instincts' within an organism, arguing that behavioural patterns were learned rather than inherited.[13]
The American psychologist Leda
Cosmides and her anthropologist husband, John Tooby listed
five principles that attempt to establish evolutionary psychology not as a
separate field within psychology – such as cognition and personality – but
rather as a theoretical basis that could be applied to any point of focus within the psychological field.[14] Where evolutionary
psychology differs[15] to James and Watson’s
sociobiology is that "evolutionary explanations of human behaviour will not
suffice"[16]
– more is needed. For example, rather
than a rigid biological foundation to human psychology as a whole focus, one
would benefit – an evolutionary psychologist would argue – in inquiry with
light to a 'mental module' outlook. That is, the human mind has engrained within
it mental modules with specialized designs.[17] These modules function
like a computer, and experts argue that it is via a modular interaction with
the world that various phenomena can be understood in greater evolutionary
detail.[18]
PRINCIPLES
Before
I concentrate on Cosmides and Tooby’s five principles identified within
evolutionary psychology I shall clarify what is meant by evolutionary
psychology. American Professor of Philosophy Lawrence Shapiro notes that
evolutionary psychology focuses on human psychology as a product of evolution via
natural selection and "the mechanisms of genetics".[19] In an evolutionary sense,
the human mind consists of thousands of "domain-specific modules that arose
during the Pleistocene epoch" (i.e. roughly 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago).[20] These domain-specific
modules are comparable to a Swiss army knife – that is, as mentioned
previously, different modules are constrained to different behaviours and areas
of the mind such as cognition, perception, and so on.[21] These domain-specific
modules, notes English philosopher and research professor Simon Blackburn, are
responsible for language development, parental motivations, love and
friendship, morality, and also emotions.[22] Cosmides and
Tooby argue that evolutionary psychology aims to:
...discover
and understand the design of the human mind... [with] the mind... [said to be]
a set of information-processing
machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems
faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors.[23]
In
Cosmides and Tooby’s principles of evolutionary psychology it is argued that the
human brain should be understood as a physical system whose ways of operating are
governed wholly by the laws of physics and chemistry (Principle 1). Principle 2
states that natural selection[24] was responsible for the
compilation of our neural circuits in order to solve problems faced by our
ancestors during our species’ evolutionary history. Furthermore, perceptive
consciousness is not all there is, but our conscious experience and “mind” is
the outcome of the extremely complicated operations of our neural circuitry (Principle 3). Principle 4 states that our brains neural circuitry are
functionally specialised in order to allow us to solve various adaptive
problems (for example, the use of our perceptive processes and discernment of
sensory stimuli in order to avoid an oncoming vehicle or collision).
Finally,
Cosmides and Tooby assert that ‘[o]ur modern skulls house a stone age mind.’ According
to this theory – and as previously noted – the human mind remains in the
Pleistocene era because of the intricate status[25] of the evolutionary
process of natural selection. Evolutionary psychologists argue that the various
domain-specific “mind modules” adapted via the processes of evolution and
natural selection, and could have only taken place in an ideal environment of evolutionary adaptedness
(or EEA).[26]
Up until the Pleistocene epoch this EEA was not considered a fixed place or
time, but rather a changing biotic, climatic, geological, and social environment
that affected the organisms survival.[27] This environment or set
of environments is a crucial tenet in the field of evolutionary psychology, and
without it proper understanding of the human mind theorists may argue would be
at most superficial.[28] However, these principles
within the field of evolutionary psychology have not gone without criticism –
as one would doubtless expect in a scientific context.
FURTHER CRITICISM
The
late American evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould argued that the crucial
principle of EEA within evolutionary psychology has no way of being empirically
tested, but is only the subject of speculation.[29] Shapiro also notes a
number of critics have postulated that there is no way the EEA could have
produced such a variety of domain-specific psychological modules due to its
intense instability.[30] Also, according to
neurosurgery expert Richard W. Byrne and Professor of Evolutionary and
Developmental Psychology Andrew Whiten, many of the selection pressures evident
in social living and that are most important in the shaping of the human mind
are quite changeable, thereby ‘not
pressures to which our ancestors could have evolved adaptations.’[31] One final criticism
towards evolutionary psychology notes that there is a need for a universal
psychology in order to understand human beings: A collective human nature.[32] This problem is due to
the fact that humans are highly variable in their psychological makeup with a
plethora of cultural and personal differences that the field of evolutionary
psychology has ‘barely scratched the surface’ of explaining.[33] Emotional intelligence,
cognitive abilities, motivations among a plethora of other abilities,
constitute an individual’s psychology, therefore if individuals exhibit
differences in the latter they differ psychologically ‘regardless of whether
they share domain specific modules.’[34] Therefore, although the
evolutionary approach to make sense of human behaviour and psychology may be
influential in the explanation of many things (if not all things) in the
psychological field, it is evident that strong criticisms that have not yet
been adequately responded to (as presented previously) do arise.
END NOTES AND CONCLUSION
This
essay has described the theoretical origins of the contemporary psychological
approach to understanding the human mind and behaviour – that is: Evolutionary
psychology. Its Darwinian roots have been outlined, and its predecessor
(sociobiology) brought to light. Theorists in the evolutionary tradition such
as John B. Watson have been identified, with more contemporary scholarship also
brought to light. Also, various intellectual and theoretical barriers to a
number of aspects within evolutionary psychology: The inability of empirical
testing of EEA, unlikelihood of various evolved adaptions, and the limitation
of the argument for a universal psychology. Overall, it was observed that
although evolutionary psychology may be beneficial in order to understand the
human mind in evolutionary terms, it is not without limitations that have yet
to be empirically explained.
The aim of this essay was to explain
the evolutionary theory as it applies to the discipline of psychology. I chose
to begin with the propagator of the evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin (1859),
in order to shed some light onto the thoughts he had in terms of where he saw
the field of psychology going in the distant future. Further, sociobiology was
chosen to highlight a precession to the field of evolutionary psychology, and
critically examined in terms of its contrasts to the latter discipline.
This insight with regards to the
origin and development of the evolutionary theory (from Darwin, to James,
Wilson, and others) as it applies to psychology was beneficial when introducing
the main principles of evolutionary psychology, as presented by Cosmides and
Tooby (1997). These principles revealed the central tenets and assumptions of
the evolutionary psychology theory, and provided foundational knowledge which
was to later be critically examined.
Further – and rather than
dismantling all five principles of evolutionary psychology – I chose to focus
on three limitations which were evident in this discipline; the inability to
empirically test the vastly important principle of EEA, the changeability of
very important selection pressures which result in evolved adaptions within an
individual, and the flawed belief of a universal psychology among human beings.
These limitations have yet to be adequately dealt with, and therefore present
stumbling blocks within the field of evolutionary psychology.
Collectively, with the origins,
theorists (both contemporary and classic), and the limitations of evolutionary
psychology discussed, I have presented a thoroughly evidenced, conspicuously
argued essay towards the importance of the evolutionary theory as it relates to
contemporary psychology. One would do well to read this essay in order to
receive an introductory understanding of the theory as it applies to this
discipline, and be enlightened towards the main limitations and advantages.
[1] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, W. Clowes and Sons, London, 1859, p. 488.
[2] Leda Cosmides &
John Tooby, Evolutionary psychology: A primer, Center for Evolutionary Psychology, California, 1997, http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Charles J.
Lumsden & Edward O. Wilson, Genes,
mind and culture, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.
[5] Michael Dix, Topic 10: Sociobiology,
“evolutionary psychology”, and their critics, Lecture notes, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, 2011.
[6] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Social biology, 1999a, http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/entry.do?id=830463, Viewed 1 November
2011.
[7] Ibid.
[8] See 5.
[9] The
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Social biology, 1999a, http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/entry.do?id=830463, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[10] Peter Kropotkin, Mutual evolution: A factor in evolution, The Anarchist Library,
1902, http://files.uniteddiversity.com/More_Books_and_Reports/The_Anarchist_Library/Petr_Kropotkin__Mutual_Aid__A_Factor_of_Evolution_a4.pdf, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[11] Watson believed
that the psychology of a person is in essence what can be observed. He paid
little attention to what cannot be observed overtly (such as cognition),
considering such things “unscientific”.
[12] Peter J. Bowler, The earth encompassed: A history of the environmental sciences,
Norton & Company Ltd., New York, 1992, p. 484.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Refer to 2.
[15] It is important
to make a distinction between sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. They
latter are two separate approaches
that both incorporate the evolutionary theory in order to make sense of
behaviour, though sociobiology came about earlier.
[16] The
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Evolutionary psychology, 1999b, http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/entry.do?id=827571, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[17] Mental modules
may include one specialized unit for cognition, another for personality, and so
on.
[18] Refer to 5; and Steven Pinker,
“The two Steves” – Pinker vs. Rose – A debate (Part 1), Edge Foundation, 1998, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_rose/pinker_rose_p1.html, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[19] Lawrence Shapiro, Evolutionary
psychology, Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, London: Routledge, 2009a, http://www.rep.routledge.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/article/Q133?ssid=398194916&n=1&authstatuscode=200, Viewed 1 November 2011; and Steven
Rose, Part a. Why do we behave the way we do?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2000, http://www.abc.net.au/science/descent/trans1a.htm, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Refer to 16.
[22] Simon Blackburn, Evolutionary
psychology, The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy, 2008, http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t98.e1170&srn=1&ssid=1144557313&authstatuscode=202#FIRSTHIT, Viewed 1 November 2011.
[23] Refer to 2.
[24] Natural selection
refers to the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin where gradual changes
in an organism take place. Better adapted organisms produce more
environmentally adjusted young, and selection
occurs when characteristics beneficial to the organism are passed onto
offspring. This mechanism within evolution allows for individual differences
between organisms in a certain population, and arises through mutation (change
within an organism), among other genetic events. Refer to Collins Dictionary of Biology, Natural selection, Collins, London,
United Kingdom, http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/entry/collinsbiology/natural_selection,
Viewed 11 July 2012.
[25] As natural
selection takes generations of gradation in order to notice viable differences
in an organism, evolutionary psychology argues that not enough generations have
passed, and therefore the human mind and circuits within have not developed to
their optimum in order to operate in our present post-industrial life – hence
the “present” Pleistocene status. Refer to 2.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Refer to 19.
[28] This is due to
the importance of understanding the environment in which the brain developed,
because without a proper context to build from the essence of understanding the
human mind and properties within can be lost.
[29] This may mean, Shapiro notes, that ‘there
is no possible test that could be performed to distinguish between two
competing hypotheses’, thereby not allowing for falsification and bringing to
light the unscientific nature of the EEA. However, it is wise to note that
these accusations for the unscientific nature of the EEA are ambiguous at best.
Refer to: Stephen J. Gould, Evolution: The pleasures of pluralism, The New York Review of Books, New York,
1997, http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/TexteFS10/Gould1997b.pdf
Viewed 1 November 2011;
and Lawrence Shapiro, Criticisms of evolutionary psychology, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
London: Routledge, 2009b, http://www.rep.routledge.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/article/Q133SECT3, Viewed 1 November 2011. Also, American
experts in the field of evolutionary psychology, Elsa Ermer, Leda Cosmides, and
John Tooby note that if the researcher is unable to attain a proper
understanding of an environment that evolutionary change has occurred in, this
presents us with a problem of not understanding the domain-specific modules
arising therein. In essence, clueless environments produce clueless mechanisms.
Refer to Steven W. Gangestad & Jeffry A. Simpson (eds.), Evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and
controversies, Guilford Press, New York, 2007, p. 157-158.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Richard W. Byrne
and Andrew Whiten cited in 29. Byrne and Whiten refer to the
Machiavellian intelligence theory (an approach that makes use of an alleged
personality trait in which a person merits a gain at the expense of another.
One’s ‘social conduct strategy’ cares little of where others may seem to be at
a disadvantage, as long as he or she stands to gain via manipulation or the
person or situation) in order to explain how an organism tends to benefit in
society given certain selection pressures that are quite changeable and not
pressures that would have applied to our ancestors. Refer to Elsevier’s Dictionary of Psychological
Theories, Machiavellian theory, Elsevier Science and Technology, Oxford,
United Kingdom, 2006, http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/entry/estpsyctheory/machiavellian_theory,
Viewed 12 July 2012.
[32] Refer to 29.
[33] Jamie C. Confer, Judith
A. Easton, Diana S. Fleischman, Cari D. Goetz, David M.G. Lewis, Carin
Perilloux & David M. Buss, Evolutionary psychology: Controversies,
questions, prospects and limitations, American
Psychologist, vol. 65, no. 2, 2010, p. 110-126, p. 122-3.
[34] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment