7a. Lewis et al (2017) Evolutionary Psychology
Why is it that some evolutionary explanations sound plausible and make sense, whereas others seem far-fetched or even absurd?
Reading: Lewis, D. M., Al-Shawaf, L., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72(4), 353-373
https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/Lewis-Al-Shawaf-Conroy-Beam-Asao-and-Buss-2017.pdf
Instructions for commenting: Quote the passage on which you are commenting (use italics, indent). Comments can also be on the comments of others. Make sure you first edit your comment in another text processor, because if you do it directly in the blogger window you may lose it and have to write it all over again.
What was fascinating to me in Lewis et al. (2017) is that they provide an explanation of why some claims in evolutionary psychology seem plausible and some do not. The explanations that appear plausible usually involve a straightforward process: they isolate a specific adaptive problem associated with our ancestral past, propose a mechanism capable of addressing that problem, and then examine it through some form of testing. For example, fear of snakes or preference for calorie-dense food have survival value, so these explanations appear credible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, explanations that appear far-fetched usually do not go through this step. As Lewis et al. indicated, if one was to simply state a story without linking it to an adaptive problem, as well as follow up with testing, this becomes a "just-so story." Therefore, some claims may sound silly to hear, but as Lewis et al. mention, if it does not have evidence or an evolutionary pathway, it is silly to consider it as plausible. I think this distinction is very helpful in differentiating that evolutionary explanations do not automatically equal being logical or plausible simply because they are presented rationally. Explanations need a clear framework and testing to actually hold up.
Lorena, good observations. The boundary line between (1) plausible "Sex & Serpents" explanations, based on doing things that may have been beneficial to our ancestors and (2) adaptationist Just-So Stories is fuzzy. It starts getting fuzzy with behaviours that are learnable, but by the time you're in the zone of cognition and language, you know that S & S explanations for what people do are absurd.
DeleteOn the other hand, the capacity to learn, think, reason and speak are themselves evolved (Turing) capacities, so the capacities may well have S & S roots -- but not their products in individuals.
I appreciate your reply! The comment you pointed out between the "Sex & Serpents" theories and the just-so-stories really helped clarify it for me. Some behaviors, such as fears or preferences, would likely be directly related to clear benefits for our ancestors, but when we think about language, reasoning, or culture, we start to feel forced when we try to give a direct evolutionary explanation to specific actions or ideas.
DeleteI also liked the way you pointed out the distinction between our capacities and their products. The capacities to learn, think, and speak probably have evolutionary roots to human well-being because they would have given us great adaptive advantages. But what we do with those capacities as individuals, like writing books, inventing math, or making TikToks, does not require a "Sex & Serpent" explanation. It gave evolutionary psychology some context for me because it reminded me not everything people do needs a utility/adaptation, sometimes, it's just what we can create from our evolved capacities.
Lorena, yes, but remember also that our destructive capacities are evolved too. (What is Baldwinian Evolution?)
DeleteI think Baldwinian evolution could relate to how learned behaviours gradually influence which traits become favoured over time. If an organism’s ability to learn or adapt gives it an advantage, that flexibility itself might start to be selected for.
DeleteIn that sense, what Lewis et al. (2017) describe about evolved psychological mechanisms feels connected. They emphasize that our adaptations aren’t fixed behaviors but flexible systems that let us respond to new challenges. Maybe that flexibility explains why both creative and destructive behaviors can emerge from the same underlying capacities.
So even if the specific actions we take today (like inventing art or weapons) aren’t directly adaptive, the capacity that allows us to learn and create them might have evolutionary roots.
That’s a really interesting connection Ayla! I like how you tie Baldwinian evolution to flexibility as something that gets selected for, not just what’s learned. It fits nicely with Lewis et al.’s point that evolved psychological mechanisms aren’t fixed behaviors but flexible systems that adjust to different situations. It also makes me wonder, if our ability to learn and create is what evolution favored, could that same flexibility sometimes lead us to behaviors that aren’t adaptive anymore, like overconsumption or online aggression? It’s kind of ironic that the trait that helped us survive can also create new problems.
DeleteAyla, the capacity (and motivation) to learn evolved genetically because it is adaptive to be able to learn. To evolve, that capacity had to have a genetic variation as basis, otherwise there is nothing to select for.
DeleteThen, once the general genetic capacity to learn has evolved, some things might be more useful to learn than others. If the capacity (or motivation) to learn those especially useful things also varies genetically, then genes making an organism better or faster at learning them would have an adaptive advantage and those with that genetic tendency would prevail. That's what is usually called "Baldwinian Evolution."
(But genetic learning capacity (and language-learning capacity) themselves are already Baldwinian traits, compared to structural traits like size, speed and strength.)
Destructive social traits like war likeness are in a kind of tug of war: beneficial to the genes of the aggressor, destructive to the genes of the victims. The same is true of cheating. This is where the notion of evolutionarily stable vs evolutionarily unstable strategies enters. Ask GPT and come back to explain.
Shireen, if the trait has genetic variation then it can evolve (if it is not evolutionary unstable, like the tendency to eat your own babies: nourishing, but self-eliminating).
I too thought of Baldwinian evolution while reading this paper. Lewis et al. (2017) outline how evolved psychological mechanisms develop through interaction between inherited structures and environmental input. Baldwinian evolution proposes that learned behaviours can influence evolutionary change. As the paper focuses on adaptive flexibility and domain-specific learning, I find it reflects how cognitive plasticity may guide genetic evolution over time through selective pressures.
Delete***EVERYBODY PLEASE NOTE: I REDUCED THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SKYWRITINGS. BUT THE READINGS ARE **ALL** RELEVANT TO AN OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURSE. SO, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT DO A SKYWRITING ON ALL OF THEM, AT LEAST FEED EACH READING YOU DO NOT READ TO CHATGPT AND ASK IT FOR A SUMMARY, SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE READING SAID — OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT HAVE A COMPLETE GRASP OF THE COURSE TO INTEGRATE AND INTERCONNECT FOR THE FINAL EXAM.***
DeleteInstructor Thank you for your comment, it really clarified Baldwinian Evolution for me and I appreciate the added idea of "evolutionarily stable vs unstable". I have asked GPT about the different strategies and here is my understanding : Evolutionarily Stable Strategy regards startegies "so good" that once established, won't be replaced, i.e. it allows for "the best outcomes" so why change it? Evolutionarily Unstable Strategy can be outperformed. To illustrate, let's take war-likeness as e.g. : whether war-likeness persist as a destructive social trait depends on if the strategy is stable in the population. (a) if war-likeness yields more fitness than peacefulness, it may spread. (2) if too much aggression (due to war-likeness) destroys the group, and reduces mating opportunities it becomes unstable and won’t persist.
Delete7.a. This paper is super helpful in showing how evolutionary psychology should actually be done. I like how it organizes research into clear steps (hypothesis generation, testing, and interpretation) without falling into overly speculative explanations; a 'just so story'. The hierarchy from evolutionary theory to middle-level hypotheses makes sense. But it also feels a bit idealistic: real human behavior is messy, and not every action maps neatly onto an “adaptive problem.” The authors are right that good theory prevents guesswork, but I wish they discussed more about limits such as how culture and individual differences complicate these frameworks.
ReplyDeleteAnthony the study of the evolution of cognitive capacity is evolving. Most surprising is what is now being learned about the cognitive capacities of invertebrates. Have a look at the work of Lars Chittka on bees.
DeleteAnthony, I find really interesting how you bring about the limitations imposed on evolutionary psychology by cultural and individual differences - this was also a worry I had in reading the paper.
DeleteI think that it still remains somewhat easy to adapt this framework in such a way that it can account for those differentiating factors. Notably, in arguing that "the evolutionary psychological construct of a universal human nature refers to species-typical psychological mechanisms, not universal manifest behavior," they open the door to further discussion of a different expression of these mechanisms. They furthermore mention culture and socio-cultural factors as potentially influencing the expression of these mechanisms, and that "the application of an evolutionary perspective to culturally variable socioecological conditions has the capacity to not only increase our understanding of cross-cultural diversity". Finally, they also mentioned a very interesting nuance in their presentation of sex-based differences in mating behaviour, as they argued that a previously present evolutionary tendency was increased by cultural factors.
Sofia, social environment is environment, so it too can exert selective effects on the variation in genes that affect survival and reproduction.
DeleteAs mentioned before me, Lewis et al. (2017) provides a framework for making evolutionary psychology more scientific by emphasizing that good explanations must connect specific adaptive problems with testable psychological mechanisms. Evolutionary theory uses the existence of adaptive problems to explain why certain mechanisms evolved. I think the interesting part is when the explanations start to not work anymore. As the professor noted, once we move into learned and cultural behaviors, S&S logic doesn’t really make sense anymore. This highlights a limit in evolutionary theory which explains why we have capacities like learning/language/reasoning etc, but now how individuals/cultures use them in life, which is shaped by many different factors.
ReplyDeleteAnnabelle, yes, and especially interesting is how S&S evolution led to the cognitive capacities that gradually prevailed.
DeleteGreat observation about where evolutionary theory reaches its limits. Lewis actually explain something similar when they talk about “middle-level theories” frameworks that connect evolutionary principles to testable mechanisms. That structure helps explain biological adaptations. Once we move from evolved psychological mechanisms to social or symbolic learning, like in language or reasoning, it becomes less about solving adaptive problems and more about how experience reshapes perception. I think thats where Harnad’s idea of learned categorical perception comes in because it shows culture and learning can extend evolution’s groundwork into new ways of thinking
DeleteRena, actually learning itself (even without altering perception, can have that effect.
DeleteEvolutionary psychology is studying how the mind and behavior of humans has been shaped by evolutionary processes. For example, humans have to find food, avoid danger, and mate to survive so our behavior has adapted to aid in those processes. This means our behaviors today may reflect those adaptations. From an evolutionary psychology view we can see that categorization has evolved to help humans survive, like by knowing safe foods from dangerous ones. By being able to group things, humans and other animals that categorize can respond effectively to important sensory cues. Language in humans specifically has expanded this skill, so now people can create more abstract categories beyond direct experiences.
ReplyDeleteLove the point about categorization helping with survival. I think that what makes humans stand out is how language builds on that same thing. Harnad explains that once we have enough directly grounded categories language lets us combine them to form new ones that don’t rely on direct sensing. So, evolution gave us the base system for recognizing things like danger or food, but language turned it into a tool for abstract thinking, letting us “see” ideas we can’t physically experience
DeleteSierra, it's simpler than that. If learning to do something helps you survive and reproduce, and the capacity to learn to do it varies genetically, then evolution will favour the genes that produce that capacity. Category learning is the general form of that capacity: what is category learning?
DeleteAyla, the adaptive advantage of language is somewhat different: what is the difference between learning categories directly, by trial and error, and learning them from someone else who has already learned it, through language?
I'm a little conflicted on what I'm about to write, but I will give it a try nonetheless. Learning categorization through language not only saves time, but is far more flexible and thus, adaptive. It allows for roughly aligned categories across a larger group of people. The richness of propositions also allows for an efficient and precise way of communicating and grasping nuances. I'd go as far to say that language allows you to grasp truths without first-hand encounters with what they entail. I will elaborate: verbally shared experiences, through language, allow warnings about threats encountered by some, reducing the risk of harm among a larger group of people. If learning was done strictly through trial-and-error, the threat would have likely needed to be encountered by most or all to be categorized as a threat. Here's why I don't feel confident in what I just wrote: with balwinian evolution in mind, is language truly necessary in a shared understanding of X as a threat? Can the tendency to avoid X be adopted by some, rising their chances of survival, and be "passed down" to their offsprings, to the point that the tendency to investigate X is virtually extinguished (it becomes second nature to avoid X)?
DeleteRena, sorry, my reply was to you, not Ayla,
DeleteFrank, yes, language not only makes it possible to learn categories and their distinguishing features from others who already know them, without the need to learn them directly from one's own trial and error experience, but language also makes it possible to transmit them to others. And behaviour can be imitated and passed on without knowing why (or for imagined or imaginary reasons)... And lying and cheating with words is possible too. In the local tribal life of the ancestral environment, cheaters were detected and answerable; no more, in the era of verbal information, mass media, and AI...
Lewis explains that evolutionary psychology doesn’t just describe behavior, it provides a method for studying it scientifically. They show how “middle-level theories” connect broad evolutionary ideas to specific, testable hypotheses about the mind’s adaptive functions. I found it interesting how even rare survival challenges, like homicide, can shape universal psychological mechanisms in humans.
ReplyDeleteI agree—the homicide simulation shows that idea really clearly. The authors show how even rare but deadly problems can leave lasting marks on the human mind. As they explain,
Delete“More than 99% of the population never faced the adaptive problem of homicide—and yet the antihomicide adaptation evolved to be present in virtually every member of the species.”
In their model, murder occurred only 0.02% of the time, yet a mutation that helped people avoid being killed spread through almost everyone. This example shows how rare but high-stakes threats can shape universal psychological defenses.
I agree, Rena. The homicide simulation illustrates well how evolutionary psychology turns abstract theory into real, testable prediction. What stands out to me is how Lewis et al. show that even events which are too rare to be regarded as evolutionarily significant, can still lead to whole species adapting when the cost of extinction is the death of the individual. Their model makes that clear: the gene protecting against homicide spreads even though 99% never face the threat. It’s an interesting reminder that natural selection is concerned with the consequences of fitness, not with the number of individuals affected. I think this demonstrates why evolutionary psychology counts as a scientific framework, it assesses risk and outcome, instead of just describing behavior.
Delete“Because the use of evolutionary perspectives in psychology is relatively new, there remains ambiguity about how to appropriately apply evolutionary principles in empirical research.” This line captures why some evolutionary explanations sound convincing while others feel far fetched. The plausible ones follow what Lewis et al. calls the hierarchical theoretical structure, moving from mid level theories (like kin selection or parental investment) to clear, falsifiable predictions. The implausable ones skip those steps, jumping from an observation (“people like art”) to an untestable “just-so” story. As they mention, solid evolutionary psychology depends on special design and empirical discriminability, not intuition. When those are missing, the explanation starts to sound like storytelling instead of science!
ReplyDelete"Humans possess evolved cognitive mechanisms that impede an accurate understanding of the logic of evolutionary theory... most psychologists receive little or no such training."
ReplyDeleteI think this passage highlights a real irony, that we’re trying to study evolution but our own evolved minds make it hard for us to fully grasp it. The authors point out that humans have built-in biases that block us from intuitively understanding how evolution works, which makes it even harder when evolutionary theory itself is already so complex. I also find it surprising that psychology programs rarely teach evolutionary biology, even though so much of behavior is rooted in it. This makes me wonder if many “evolutionary psychology” claims rest on shaky understanding. If we don’t deeply learn the logic of evolution, we risk using it more as a storytelling tool than as a real scientific framework for testable predictions.
Jad, but why are evolutionary explanations of fear of spiders and of heights more plausible than fear of global warning?
DeleteAccording to the reading, an evolutionary explanation is strongest when it connects a behavior to an adaptive problem faced repeatedly by our ancestors. Fears of spiders and heights make sense because those threats were common enough in ancestral environments to shape survival-related psychological mechanisms. In contrast, global warming is a modern, abstract issue that hasn’t existed long enough to influence natural selection. So from an evolutionary psychology perspective, only fears linked to recurrent ancestral dangers would meet the criteria for an evolved adaptation.
DeleteBut that also makes me think, with something like global warming, being afraid or “cautious” doesn’t actually protect us because it’s a collective, modern problem rather than a personal, ancestral one. Could our evolved fear systems even adapt to handle large-scale, abstract threats like climate change, or are they too rooted in immediate, personal danger?
I think this also connects to the ideas of higher/lower frequency and impact adaptive problems, which were also mentioned above. Heights and spiders can be described as high-frequency, high-impact problems, and would therefore be very influential in selection, driving evolution. Global warming, on the other hand, doesn't yet have a high impact on a frequent basis, and therefore has less adaptive urgency. Adaption for it, could however, spread into the whole population as it becomes more high-impact, as explained by Lucy and Gabe above, and even more so if it becomes frequent on a personal level as well, as Sannah noted.
DeleteIf our emotions were designed for survival, and this is why sometimes we have such visceral reactions to an emotion even when we might know that we're overreacting - if our emotions are designed for survival and not happiness, I am wondering if we should actually trust them. In this paper, Lewis et al explain how each emotion has evolved from recurring problems faced by humans. Emotions activate under certain conditions like an ‘algorithm’ for example, if pathogen cue is detected, then we get a disgust response, then avoidance behavior. Except, now the world looks very different and while yes, survival is still the main priority, we don't experience the same daily threats we used to. In the western world at least, most people are chasing happiness or something else. I definitely don't think that neglecting emotions is the answer either but I think that often we are told to trust our gut. I feel like maybe we should learn to reinterpret our emotions to know when to listen to them and when to override them.
ReplyDeleteLauren, plausible evolutionary explanations apply to our ancestral environment -- our "environment of evolutionary adaptedness", where predators were numerous and sugar (to give children energy to escape predators) was rare. Children who were indifferent to sugar did not live to reproduce. So children evolved a "sweet tooth," a desire to get as much candy as they could, when they could. Today there is a candy machine on every corner; and the result is cavities, obesity and diabetes. Not harmful enough to kill off the sweet tooth before reproductive age. [This is probably a Just-So Story, but with some plausible features...]
Delete"If our emotions were designed for survival, and this is why sometimes we have such visceral reactions to an emotion even when we might know that we're overreacting - if our emotions are designed for survival and not happiness, I am wondering if we should actually trust them."
DeleteI really like this point about emotions being designed for survival rather than happiness. It connects to something Lewis et al. discuss about the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) versus modern contexts. Our emotional mechanisms evolved to solve specific adaptive problems in ancestral environments, but those environments were very different from today. Like you said, we don't face the same daily threats anymore, so our "gut feelings" might be triggering responses that were adaptive 300,000 years ago but aren't necessarily helpful now. This reminds me of what we discussed about categorical perception in class. Maybe emotions work like categories that help us quickly respond to threats.
The assumption that a distal statement […] “natural selection played a part in shaping this mechanism” implies the proximal statement “social and cultural inputs have no effect on the development or activation of this mechanism” is […] erroneous. I think this is interesting and I see that there has already been conversation about how culture plays into the evolutionary explanations for our behaviour. The paper makes a distinction between the distal and proximal causes of behaviour which allows us to use both sociocultural and evolutionary hypotheses in tandem to explain our behaviour even if many make the assumption that cultural explanations actually serve to disprove evolutionary explanations. The paper shows that the distal evolutionary hypotheses give us the explanation of why we need such a behaviour (our ancestors that developed language was able to propagate further than those who don’t) while the proximate, sociocultural hypotheses explain how these behaviours manifest (variable words for snow in Inuit language).
ReplyDeleteYes, the differentiation between distal and proximate explanations of behaviour in the paper are valuable in acting as complementary but not necessarily competing causes. While distal explanations ask why a mechanism evolved and what adaptive problem it has solved, proximate asks how the mechanism works and what triggers it in current contexts. I find it helpful using the mentioned example of jealousy. When a person experiences jealousy, a proximate explanation questions what emotions and physiological responses occur when this feeling is triggered, what cues activate this etc. On the other hand, distal causes describe why perhaps jealousy evolved to help individuals prevent partner infidelity which could threaten reproductive success.
DeleteWhile Lewis offer a useful guide for applying evolutionary logic to psychology, their framework seems most convincing when addressing primal, biologically grounded adaptations, such as aversions to snakes and spiders, which directly affect survival. These examples fit neatly within Darwinian, gene-based evolution. However, when it comes to complex human behaviors shaped by culture and language, genetic explanations become less sufficient. In these cases, Baldwinian evolution where learned behaviors influence selection pressures and memetic evolution where ideas and practices spread culturally may offer stronger explanatory power. In humans, the most influential “meme” is arguably language itself, through which cultural knowledge and behavioral norms are transmitted. Thus, evolutionary psychology might benefit from integrating cultural and Baldwinian perspectives, rather than relying primarily on genetic adaptationist accounts.
ReplyDeleteI found this distinction between evolutionary and learned/cultural explanations really clarifying. It’s interesting how a single psychological mechanism can have universal evolutionary origins but still produce different behaviour depending on local inputs. For example, kin recognition is “hardwired” in the sense that it evolved to estimate genetic relatedness, but the cues it relies on (like cohabitation or maternal perinatal association) are shaped by social and cultural contexts. Evolutionary explanations are then not in conflict with sociocultural ones, rather they complement each other. (Evolutionary theory provides the “why” behind a mechanism while proximate analysis explains the “how” it manifests in specific environments.)
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most fascinating in this paper is its systematic framework for connecting evolutionary theory to testable psychological hypotheses. The emphasis on task analysis, specifying inputs, computational mechanisms, and outputs, offers a rigorous method for mapping cognitive architecture onto adaptive functions. I was especially drawn to the discussion of middle-level theories, which bridge abstract evolutionary principles with empirical inquiry, such as kin selection or parental investment. The simulation showing how low-frequency, high-impact events can shape species-typical adaptations illustrates natural selection’s sensitivity to asymmetric fitness costs. Finally, the treatment of evolutionary byproducts reveals how functional design can yield maladaptive outcomes, a theme deeply relevant to neurolaw and behavioral ethics.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary explanations for certain behaviours sound plausible when they are explained with the logic and methods of proper evolutionary reasoning, which includes rational explanation of ancestral selection measures. The “just-so” stories are just narratives made up after the fact to explain phenomena. They don’t hold up in empirical studies, or they are not able to be modeled in a way that an empirical study can confirm or deny them. Since this is one of the 3 pillars of evolutionary psychology that the authors mention, along with hypothesis generation and result interpretation, this makes these stories speculative and seemingly implausible.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this paper does a good job of restoring credibility to the scientific domain of evolutionary psychology. Indeed, many scientists discredit evolutionary psychology because they believe that it is “too easy” to retrospectively explain psychological evolution. In their eyes, its hypotheses cannot be empirically tested. However, the authors reaffirm that, like any science, evolutionary science follows prescribed steps and contends with uncertainty. Evolutionary scientists generate hypotheses based on either theory or observations and produce empirically testable predictions. Of course, it is not possible to test these hypotheses directly on the distal environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) (which favoured the adaptation), but it remains possible to test the predictions by looking for psychological evidence of the adaptation proximally, in contemporary subjects. Additionally, a hypothesis can be further supported when the findings reflect that the adaptation does not manifest in a context where it was not expected to.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how the authors demonstrate how evolutionary psychology extends beyond storytelling. A lot of times, people assume evolutionary psychology is just about making clever guesses about why humans behave a certain way (we act like this because it is an adaptive mechanism). But the authors push back against that by arguing that real evolutionary psychology is about building theories that can be tested and potentially disproven. For instance, rather than simply stating that "people help their family because of evolution", researchers can develop a precise hypothesis based on kin selection theory and then gather information to test it. That’s what makes it science. It’s not about being right, it’s about being able to prove yourself wrong through evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis paper outlines many distinct stages in evolutionary psychology research - identifying adaptive problems, conducting task analyses to propose psychological mechanisms, then testing for predicted design features. Their homicide simulation shows a counterintuitive principle that even rare but high impact problems faced by such a small minority can drive species wide adaptation. The 99% who never encountered murder still evolved the relevant psycholocial machinery becasue the fitness consequences were severe. Must-solve problems like finding food are obvious, but beneficial ones - like the ectoparasite example where individually minor mite bites accumulate, showing how repeated pressures also shape psychology. Also their treatment of the EEA concept clarifies a common confusion that it doesn't refer to a specific time and place but rather to the set of selection pressures that shaped each particular adaptation. Each adaptation has its own distinct EEA.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe primary point of the paper is that evolutionary psychology can explain the distal causes, the “why” of our behaviour. This includes adaptive problems like sex or our fear of spiders or snakes, which are learned to favour reproduction and survival. However, evolutionary psychology still fails to explain proximate cognitive mechanisms or, for kid-sib, the “how” of our behaviour.
I think the example of language helped me understand this concept. Evolutionary psychology might point to language having evolved to allow better communication and cooperation, distal causes, but it does not explore how language is processed in the brain or how infants learn language, the “how”.
The authors provide a clear roadmap for conducting evolutionarily-informed psychological research emphasizing three phases: hypothesis generation, empirical testing, and interpretation. To start, researchers identify adaptive problems humans could have faced in ancestral environments, and then they work out psychological mechanisms that could have evolved to solve them. Next, in empirical testing, experiments, cross cultural comparisons, or observational studies can be used to determine whether these behaviours are consistent, universal, and functionally adaptive. Finally, evolutionary theory is used in conjunction with existing biological and psychological evidence to assess whether the findings support an adaptive explanation. On a personal side note, there is a youtube channel called Primer that has a wide array of videos simulating different psychological behaviours, like aggression or teamwork. I was reminded of their video on Simulating the Evolution of Sacrificing for Family (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLX_r_WPrIw) when we discussed Sex and Spiders in class. It’s a bit long but definitely interesting and tangential to our class discussions!
ReplyDeleteWhile I find the use of natural selection (genes that are better at making us survive get passed on to the next generation compared to those who don't) as a guiding star to develop middle level theories (where you try to explain why some traits evolved to solve a particular problem) a good idea, I think it can very easily lead to error. We discussed the many examples in details like the pharaoh theory to explain incest or one that I heard recently that states that girls are predisposed to like pink(or red-ish hues) because of the berries their ancestors used to gather. Here, EP is bending over backwards to try to answer something that falls squarely out of the realm of genetic predispositions. I believe that something like epigenetics might be closer to what is happening. Where you might have some genes that predispose us to certain things but they can be turned on/off. However, figuring out the what and how of the turning on and off is more in the realm of what cognitive science is doing than EP.
ReplyDeleteJean-Remy I find it interesting that you are bringing up epigenetics. I agree with your stance that in the given "pink" example, EP is bending over backwards to explain it as S&S. As you mention, the many examples mentioned in class illustrate how absurd S&S can become when applied to "everything and anything". This is super relevant as the article is warning against slipping into S&S explanations, as EP should distinguish between adaptations, byproducts, and cultural effects. Epigenetics allow us to explore the impact of your environment (notably social) and how "nurture" comes into play.
Delete“The value of the must-solve versus beneficial heuristic is to aid researchers in developing psychological hypotheses by reminding them of the vast space of adaptive problems, including those that are less obvious—but not necessarily less important—in driving the evolution of psychological adaptations.”
ReplyDeleteThis quote summarizes well the intent of this article, in my opinion. Lewis et al. encourage and explain how to use evolutionary approaches in psychology research. Here must-solve problems are defined as problems that require solving to ensure direct survival and continuation of the individual/species. Beneficial problems, on the other hand, are not necessary, but they help improve the species and its resilience. Lewis et al. argue that using these approaches broadens the horizon of research by offering various ways to think of adaptive problems and traits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLewis et al. (2017) draw attention to the growing use of evolutionary thinking in explaining the underlying mechanisms of human psychology and behaviour, offering a hierarchical framework for appropriately applying evolutionary principles in empirical research. As mentioned above, this structure involves moving from middle-level theories of evolution, such as kin selection, to testable hypotheses and predictions that help infer the mechanisms thought to have evolved to solve specific adaptive problems*. Notably, the authors propose conducting a task analysis to reject less plausible hypotheses—a process that involves identifying the desired end state of an adaptive problem (i.e., the solution) and outlining the psychological functions required to achieve it. This process includes detecting life-threatening cues in the environment, and making sense of these cues, as well as their corresponding behaviours, emotions, and physiological responses.
ReplyDelete*Adaptive problems are those that pose ongoing threats to the survival or reproduction of the human species.
I asked ChatGPT: “ Do you find that the ‘Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language’ theory by Robin Dunbar is a valid application of Darwinian evolution to language and learning?”. Surprisingly, it answered “Yes”, arguing that “It explains language as a biological adaptation shaped by selection pressures (need for social cohesion). Individuals with better communicative and social skills were more likely to survive and reproduce. The underlying genetic and neurocognitive capacities for language […] would then be selected for. […] genetic traits supporting language ability were favored because they improved fitness in social groups.”
ReplyDeleteI proceeded to explain how Dunbar’s theory cannot be a “Sex and Spiders” explanation for the evolution of language, and why it is most likely a “Just-So” story, as defined in the reading by Lewis and colleagues. In brief, I argued that a product of Darwinian evolution must originate from a genetic variation, which the capacity to learn and to form social bonds do. However, Darwinian evolution, though it is at the root of current behaviours observed in humans, cannot explain “why we do what we do”. The capacity for language as we know it today was not hard-coded, rather learned. Thus, Dunbar’s grooming and gossip theory on the origin of language is not only closer to Baldwinian than it is to Darwinian evolution, but it is actually most likely a just-so story, devised post-hoc to attempt to explain how human language came about. After my argument, ChatGPT seemed to have understood the distinction and has made the correction that “Dunbar’s framework is Darwinian in style (it appeals to natural selection). But the content of his claim — that gossip replaced grooming — fails Darwinian criteria for an evolved trait because it doesn’t demonstrate heritable variation or selection pressure at the genetic level.”
This paper has gotten me to think about my own tendencies to attribute certain psychological / behavioural phenomena to evolution. In retrospect, I understand now how easy it is to explain the cause of any behaviour by just saying it improves fitness or survival. What is missing in these misguided attributions is the awareness that evolutionary adaptation gives rise to mechanisms, not behaviour. If we say both "we include people because it increases our chances of survival", and "we exclude people because it increases our chances of survival" these sentiments seem paradoxical because we're using a framework of unfalsifiable hypothesizing. It is clear that it's not the behaviour that we should be characterizing, but underlying mechanisms. This is more difficult of course, but the paper gives a guide on where to start.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs many have said above, the evolutionary theory of evolution explains distal cause and the “why” of some of our behaviours, such as the development of language for communication. This paper did make me wonder how evolutionary theory would explain our research on the easy and hard problem, the problem of other minds, etc. Curiosity must be an evolutionary feature, but what makes us feel the need to understand ourselves when we are working fine as is? EEAs could be part the answer, due to their influence on the development of the brain processes of our ancestors. In our current western societies, in which the set of evolutionary pressures has changed, abstract questions might be examined more closely due to the interaction between these novel evolutionary pressures and our neural mechanisms we developed over time. With the simplification of many of the ancestral survival tasks in modern societies, we might have turned our curiosity towards other inputs such as understanding ourselves and the functioning of our brain rather than immediate survival.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete