Evolutionary theory (ET) is a marvelous tool for assisting us in understanding our heritage and our propensities as humans. Those who use ET typically marshall ethnographic, anthropological, and/or evolutionary biological data to inform their interpretations of human societies and individuals. On the other hand, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) too often puts evolutionary makeup and clothing on modern cultural assumptions. (Remember I'm not criticizing all evolutionary psychologists but those who are identified with EP.)
My recent critique of EP was about the sloppy use of baselines by EP, resulting in claims not supported by evolutionary evidence. I also pointed out how the vociferousness of EP proponents, and the media that love them for their confirmation of current cultural biases, can affect one's worldview and moral behavior.
Specifically, my recent blog focused on Evolutionary Psychology's shifting social environmental baseline it uses for comparisons. Several critiques of the post have emerged (see links below) and I address the main critiques here.
I focus on comments from Dr. Saad which seem to encompass the major criticisms of my previous post (link below).
Dr. Saad: Evolutionary behavioral scientists have studied an extraordinary range of societies including numerous hunter-gatherer societies (e.g., the Hadza, the Shuar). Incidentally, here is what Leda Cosmides and John Tooby state in their primer on evolutionary psychology: "The environment that humans -- and, therefore, human minds -- evolved in was very different from our modern environment. Our ancestors spent well over 99% of our species' evolutionary history living in hunter-gatherer societies." It seems that Dr. Narvaez is criticizing Cosmides and Tooby for being unaware about our HGSB [Hunter-Gatherer Small Band] past when she seems to have borrowed their sentence verbatim!
MY RESPONSE: Right, it is good to start with the hunter-gatherer baseline, as long as you make sure to focus on small-band hunter-gatherers (not complex hunter-gatherers, chiefdoms or tribes---see Douglas Fry's work). I'm afraid that EPers say they focus here but they really don't when their baselines shift around.
Dr. Saad: 'The !Kung San constitute the epitome of an egalitarian hunter-gather society. Here is a quote (among many others) regarding the so-called egalitarian !Kung San (Shlain, 2003, p. 112): "Each incremental hunting success moves a man up a notch in the male-dominance hierarchy, and each ascending rung brings with it an increasing number of females willing to have sex with him. Kristen Hawkes calls this the 'Show-Off Theory' of hunting." Evolutionary psychologists have identified numerous instances wherein food sharing (a form of communal egalitarianism) is used as a form of sexual signaling (cf. Smith & Bird, 2000). An egalitarian society is one in which there is a shunning of institutional hierarchies. This does not mean that members of such societies do not assort, in terms of their mating values, along a strict pecking order. To say that a society is egalitarian is not to say that all members of the society possess the same mating value or the same mating status.
MY RESPONSE: Several distinctions must be made. First, one must distinguish between reputation status and dominance hierarchy. They are two different things. Reputation status of course occurs in every human group. Dominance hierarchy does not (again, see the anthropology research). There was no strict pecking order among small-band hunter gatherers. Second, mating and pairing behavior are distinct. Young females in playing with young males may have mated in play with one another without much discrimination (e.g., before puberty, after puberty but before fertility). But a female commitment to pair bond would have been influenced by the reputation status of the male. Valued males were not only good hunters but emotionally intelligence (non-aggressive and socially appropriate). My comments here are based on Douglas P. Fry's chapter: Human Nature: The Nomadic Forager Model.In Robert W. Sussman and C. Robert Cloninger (Eds.) Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. New York: Springer.
Dr. Saad: Wishful thinking and John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" do not trump one of the most ubiquitous facts about the history of humankind, namely that it is paved with rivers of blood and violence....
MY RESPONSE: Here is evidence of how EP mixes up different prehistoric societal structures (the complex with simple hunter-gatherers) and lumps them together. This was done by researchers like Keeley, whom EPers like to cite for "rivers of blood". To sort through the evidence, see Douglas Fry's book, Human Potential for Peace, because he goes through the data carefully and I can't do it here.
Let me draw a caveat however. Among small-band hunter-gatherers studied, there is a range of violence. War is atypical (there is no hierarchy or command structure to coerce it) but homicide does occur in the majority. Any pattern of violence typically leads to expulsion or even killing of the violent individual.
Dr. Saad: Since Dr. Narvaez is a faculty member at the University of Notre Dame (a religiously-founded institution), perhaps she could remind us if the holy texts of the Abrahamic religions contain any violence in them. Let me guess the response: Agricultural societies turned otherwise peaceful Bronze Age individuals into sadistic savages. Otherwise, in their pristine HGSB state, they would have been full of love, playfulness, and compassion toward all living creatures including their fellow conspecifics. Agriculture is apparently the devil.
MY RESPONSE: This has nothing to do with the argument since we are not discussing societies other than the small-band hunter gatherers. Again, this comment shows evidence of the shifting baselines that characterize EP discourse. It is important to read ethnographic reports and anthropological summaries. They are more careful with the data. Check out the OUP book, Primates in Perspective.
Dr. Narvaez: Why it matters for your life: Here is one reason. If you think that hierarchy is a human heritage, you are more likely to put up with inequality (and wonder why you are stressed out--see the book, The Spirit Level). Our ancestors did not countenance inequality in resources or status.
Dr. Saad : How many more times do evolutionary psychologists have to reiterate that they do not use facts about human nature in support of any political ideology ('is' does not translate into 'ought')? Dr. Narvaez's position is tantamount to stating: "If you believe that cancer is part of the human heritage, you are more likely to put up with cancer."
MY RESPONSE: When EPers shift their baselines, they show a bias towards current structures. EPers may not be doing this consciously. But the fact that EPers don't address the data and exclude those who disagree with a particular conclusion as being "anti-evolutionary" smacks of an ideology. Nevertheless, my comment here was how EP framing affects the worldviews of the everyday person. I'm saying that beliefs about human nature matter. (See Sylvan Tompkins' work.) One's worldview affects how one treats others. If you think people are naturally selfish, you won't be too kind to your baby or others. On the other hand, if you think people are naturally cooperative, you will be kind.
Dr. Saad: Is Dr. Narvaez genuinely arguing that evolutionary psychologists are unaware of human sociality, communal living, and coalitional psychology? Yes, this is new territory for evolutionary psychologists other than the hundreds of papers that they've already published on these topics.
MY RESPONSE: It is good to be examining all these things informed by ET (evolutionary theory). But EPers need to stay within the ET framework instead of shifting in and out of it.
