Book Description
Composed of cutting-edge reasearch and featuring an engaging writing style, the author offers compelling scientific answers to the profound human questions regarding love and work.
Beginning with a historial introduction, the text logically progresses by discussing adaptive problems humans face and ends with a chapter showing how the new field of evolutionary psychology encompasses all branches of psychology. Each chapter is alive with the subjects that most occupy our minds: sex, mating, getting along, getting ahead, friends, enemies, and social hierarchies. Why is child abuse 40 times more prevalent among step-families than biologically intact families? Why, according to one study, did 75% of men but 0% of women consent to have sex with a complete stranger? Buss explores these intriguing quandaries with his vision of psychology in the new millenium as a new science of the mind.
Anyone with an interest in the biological facets of human psychology will find this a fascinating read.
Customer Reviews:
high on appeal, low on rigor.......2005-06-24
I used this book as a text book for a course I taught on Evolutionary Psychology. On the whole, the students really enjoyed the text and they found Buss's writing style to be very engaging and easy to read. I would agree.
Nevertheless, I feel this book--like the whole field of Evolutionary Psychology--requires a far more rigorous scientific framework before it can be considered a field that can substantively explain human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. Don't get me wrong: evolutionary hypotheses can provide a lot of insight into particular human behaviors. However, I would have liked to see much more discussion on what is science, what constitutes a scientifically valid argument, how do we falsify a particular hypothesis, etc. These issues could be covered in a few pages or so, and I think they could help flesh out or perhaps even justify some of the arguments put forth in the text. As it stands now, the book reads more like an apologetic and as I skim the pages, I get the same feeling that I do when I've been pamphleted by evangelicals. Buss's arguments are fraught with generalizations: studies on college kids are extrapolated to the whole human species, studies on plumage color in birds are used to argue for handicaps in humans, and on and on it goes. There are sentences that make pretty extraordinarly claims that go unreferenced and there are sentences that make trivial points that are tailed by six references.
Professor Buss does a good job in conveying the basics of natural selection, but then uses some of the most tenuous definitions of fitness in trying to make an adaptive argument: questionaires, age, symmetry, and even intuition are all stand-ins for fitness. This is a shame because in order to know when selection will operate, we need to know how phenotypic (including behavioral) variation covaries with fitness. Because his fitness proxies are so weak, I have a hard time buying many of the arguments advanced in the book. Other evolutionary forces are rarely discussed; such lapses are unfortunate since it is likely that drift has played some (if not a major) role in getting populations to cross adaptive valleys, as well as affecting the evolutionary dynamics of frequency-dependent selection. But I digress...
I hope future editions (and I'm sure they're on their way) will include a chapter on scientific and evolutionary epistemology. That is, I would like to see a chapter address the question: what steps do evolutionary biologists proceed through when they make an adaptive argument. This would be a timely and useful contribution given that intelligent-design folks are trying to loosen up and poke holes in the definition of science. One chapter starts down this road but never critically discusses how hypotheses are tested (and rejected!), it focuses more on how hypotheses are developed--and believe me, evolutionary psychologists are good at coming up with hypotheses. Professor Buss's book, with its profligate use of unfalsifiable hypotheses, does not help the cause in this respect. Sure, evolutionary psychologists can always hide behind Lakatos as they denigrate Popper for being too severe, or, like Dunbar et al., they can actually learn some math, some scientific epistemology, and help bring evolutionary psychology into a more rigorous, more reputable position. Buss's book does too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
HUMAN CIVILIZATION FROM THE PRESENT: WHY WE ACT THIS WAY.......2004-03-27
Each day for twenty-something years I woke up to see reality as it was presented to me. I noticed many patterns in life that are hard not to notice -- such as the difference between men and women in how they approach sexual opportunities. Men will readily say yes, women firmly no. Why?
Evolution is such an intriguing and elegant theory on its approach to our current behavior. Boss's contention is that the present behaviors we see today in our modern era -- fear of snakes, high male sexual drive -- arose from our ancestors. Those who did not have such characteristics did not become our ancestors. Thus, over time, certain characteristics were more likely to be successful in the mating process, and those are the same characteristics we see today. Boss's insight required a lot of keen intellectual insight into many different hypothesis.
Some of these hypothesis seemed far-fetched at first. Who would think that there would be statistical differences in how maternal grandparents v. paternal grandparents relate to their grandchildren. There are, however. Maternal grandmothers have less risk in investing in a grandchild who is not biologically related since she is confident that her daughter is biologically hers, and she can be certain that her daughter's child is biologically related, too. The hypothesis that paternal grandfathers would be most distant -- since they have the most to lose -- turned out to be true. (Paternal grandfathers cannot be 100% certain that they fathered their son or daughter, and thus, they cannot be sure that that child's son or daughter is biologically related).
This is perhaps one of the most important contributions in scientific literature since Watson and Clark's published report on their findings of DNA.
Michael Gordon
A thorough, rigorous, and illuminating book........2002-06-01
David Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire and The Dangerous Passion, brings his formidable intellect, research experience, knowledge, and writing talent to bear in this impressive introduction to the field of Evolutionary Psychology. It is obvious from reading the book that it was painstakingly researched. An impressive breadth of research studies in evolutionary psychology and relevant work from other disciplines, including anthropology, biology, and sociology are clearly explained and their implications discussed. Alternative hypotheses and interpretations of research, where alternatives have been explicitly proposed, are even-handedly explored. The chapters of the book are organized by the kinds of problems of survival and reproduction faced by our ancestors. This organization makes the broad range of specific research covered in the book easy to understand and integrate into a coherent understanding of the evolutionary origins of human cognition and behavior. Thought-provoking, absorbing, and exceptionally well written: Dr. Buss's Evolutionary Psychology text is an absolute joy to read. It is a must-have for psychologists, biologists, and any student of human nature.
Procede with Caution.......2001-01-13
I have not read the text book. I am a former student of Dr. Buss' and suspect that it will be as vacant in theory as his previous literary attempts. Evolutionary Psychology is an extremely interesting field, but as with any field must be considered in an interdisciplanary manner. The reviewers that make blanket statements about Evolutionary Psychology being the only world view might benefit from reading some philosophy without prejudging it as merely a coping mechanism. For those of you who considering purchasing this book, the last time I spoke with Dr. Buss, he had only very superficial knowledge of the more detailed and sophisticated theories in this field of study and this will probably be reflected in the text book. To be fair, his writing is often enjoyable and as others have said, does read like a novel, but do not mistake this for depth of knowledge.
A Great Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology.......2000-07-12
In "Evolutionary Psychology -- The New Science of Mind," David M. Buss delivers a comprehensive, well-detailed, and illustrative presentation of evolved psychological mechanisms that have become universal across the human species while detailing the biology necessary to understand evolutionary theory and how it applies to human psychology. Organizationally-sound, the textbook reads like a novel, clearly providing theoretical and empirical information requisite for a fundamental understanding of Evolutionary Psychology. Buss' volume is essential reading for students of Evolutionary Psychology and very suitable reading for those of us interested in why we are the way we are. For more advanced readers, "The Adapted Mind," edited by Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby is an ideal choice.
Book Description
"It's the animal in us," we often hear when we've been bad. But why not when we're good? Primates and Philosophers tackles this question by exploring the biological foundations of one of humanity's most valued traits: morality.
In this provocative book, primatologist Frans de Waal argues that modern-day evolutionary biology takes far too dim a view of the natural world, emphasizing our "selfish" genes. Science has thus exacerbated our reciprocal habits of blaming nature when we act badly and labeling the good things we do as "humane." Seeking the origin of human morality not in evolution but in human culture, science insists that we are moral by choice, not by nature.
Citing remarkable evidence based on his extensive research of primate behavior, de Waal attacks "Veneer Theory," which posits morality as a thin overlay on an otherwise nasty nature. He explains how we evolved from a long line of animals that care for the weak and build cooperation with reciprocal transactions. Drawing on both Darwin and recent scientific advances, de Waal demonstrates a strong continuity between human and animal behavior. In the process, he also probes issues such as anthropomorphism and human responsibilities toward animals.
Based on the Tanner Lectures de Waal delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2004, Primates and Philosophers includes responses by the philosophers Peter Singer, Christine M. Korsgaard, and Philip Kitcher and the science writer Robert Wright. They press de Waal to clarify the differences between humans and other animals, yielding a lively debate that will fascinate all those who wonder about the origins and reach of human goodness.
Customer Reviews:
Plausible.......2007-09-19
This is a very short book. The main essay has just about over 50 pages. The rest is introduction, some responses, and a closing statement.
Who says that important books need to be long? Possibly it is not all that important, but the main idea is new to me, therefore I am glad that I picked it up, after a recommendation in Der Spiegel.
Let me also say, I don't find the main hypothesis really compelling, in the sense of thoroughly thought through and explained. But I think it is plausible, and as I had been used to think in different directions and categories, this is a new paradigm for me.
Simply put, FdW challenges the conventional view that morality is part of civilization, that morality is a 'veneer' over our animal core, which is generally assumed to be selfish and immoral. He rejects the view that mankind developed as individuals and then became socialites, requiring rules for co-existence. Rather, homo evolved as a social animal and started his career on Earth with a set of rules for social life. I.o.w., the whole question how a human society without a creator can have morality, is superfluous, baseless, a waste of energy.
On the way to this hypothesis, FdW gets into arguments with the 'selfish gene' theory and with the Dawkins direction of neo-Darwinism. My suspicion is, that this conflict is as useless as a goitre (as we say in German). I don't think that Dawkins really meant the gene to be literally 'selfish', hence let's drop this linguistic bickering. (However I am too lazy to look it up in Dawkins.)
Only 4 stars, not because it is not important, but because it remains below its potential. The discussion part is not always to the point.
I am tempted to give an extra star for the foto of Georgia admiring her own reflection in the camera lens. But maybe an Oscar is more appropriate?
Welcome new perspectives on moral theorizing.......2007-09-06
This book is an interesting confrontation between primate research and professional moral philosophers. The aim is to discuss De Waal's attack on `veneer theory', the idea that moral behaviour is not really grounded in our nature but just a thin cultural overlay, but the discussion quickly becomes way more general.
In fact, we quickly see familiar dividing lines appear. Some, like Korsgaard, see morality as based on reason alone, and therefore purely human. Others, like De Waal, see it as primarily based on inborn capacities like empathy, and maintain that we share a lot of our morality with primates.
The truth is probably somewhere in between. Actually almost all the contributors confirm this in some way, but this is obscured by the fact that the authors do not seem to be able to agree on the meaning on the word`morality'.
Semantic confusion and untenable extremes: Nothing new in the world of discussions of morality then? What does make this book interesting, is that this time the discussions are informed by empirical evolutionary research, which means that even the philosophers have to keep their feet on the ground. Apart from the ape-stories being interesting to read, the result is a welcome new perspective on existing moral theories.
Critically Important Research.......2007-08-25
Teleologically oriented theologians and pompous philosophers need to read this book. New empirical research offers dramatic insights as to the how's and why's of the bilogoical origins of human values and morality. The more this book is read and digested, the faster the phony televangelists will disappear from popular and uninformed culture.
Excellent .......2007-07-29
I do not have the required background knowledge to really make a judgment as to the fundamental claim here i.e. that moral behavior, including decision-making is not an exclusively human prerogative but in fact is the natural condition of a wide variety of species for whom cooperatrive and and altruistic behavior can be collectively advantageous. De Waal's critique of what he calls 'veneer theory' the idea that human morality is a thin layer which comes over and above our fundamentally aggressive, selfish nature is I believe, even when one considers humans in isolation, quite convincing.
He brings certain evidence and examples to show that other species' outside the human, including such stereotypically cruel and mean creatures as wolves engage in mutually advantageous group behavior. The question however of the degree of conscious decision involved in this is one not really solved here. Clearly the human capacity for language- use and symbolic - communication extends not only modes of cooperation, but complexities in consciousness. One feels that deliberation and decision in human action work in ways other animals cannot come close to.
Our hertitage deepens.......2007-06-10
Succinct, quotable, accessible and scholarly ( in the best sense!)- Dr De Waal never disappoints.
Amazon.com
An accessible introduction to the science of evolutionary psychology and how it explains many aspects of human nature. Unlike many books on the topic,which focus on abstractions like kin selection, this book focuses on Darwinian explanations of why we are the way we are--emotionally and morally. Wright deals particularly well with explaining the reasons for the stereotypical dynamics of the three big "S's:" sex, siblings, and society.
Book Description
Are men literally born to cheat? Does monogamy actually serve women's interests? These are among the questions that have made The Moral Animal one of the most provocative science books in recent years. Wright unveils the genetic strategies behind everything from our sexual preferences to our office politics--as well as their implications for our moral codes and public policies. Illustrations.
Customer Reviews:
A self-help book.......2007-09-03
If you are a modern woman, educated with all the equalitarism lectures, professional, qualified, and have gone through a life very much like that of the girls of "Sex and the City", put your Cosmo aside and read this book. It may shock you, it may even infuriate you but it may help you to understand why certain past relationships did not work, what people thinks of you and it will provide you with a general dynamucs of human relations.
It's not like you are going to accept that every person in the world follows the behavior patterns exposed here but it helps you to comprehend why some people do (even though they preached and believed on exactly the opposite attitudes) and, moreover, once you accept these patterns underlie most human motivations you can use this knowledge for your own benefit... I got a ring on my finger out of it... as well as great success as a HR manager...
And the gossip about Darwin's life is quite interesting too...
A very interesting point of view.......2007-08-28
A series of hypothesis and theories, always supported by a scientific presentation of evidence found in other works on the relevant subjects. A very interesting insight in the human nature, in the relationship between men and women, with special regard to the driving forces which influence the human behaviour (sexual desire, greed, hunt for power and wealth etc.).
Great Style and Openness.......2007-06-14
Here is a lively discussion of evolutionary psychology and what it means for our views on human morality. Robert Wright has a very good writing style and a way of explaining EP that aids even those of us who have already read widely on the subject. Here he also uses Darwin's own life and experiences to illustrate the subject.
The first section is about the sexes which, contrary to what some people might think, does not present men with anything to be proud of. It does show us why both sexes are a disappointment to each other. Wright overemphasizes female 'monogamy', as many writers do, when promiscuity should really be presented as more relative than the good for men/bad for women dichotomy. There is still much to be debated in this area but Wright does try to cover the subject as broadly as he can. I certainly don't see him as deliberately shying away from any aspect that may be relevant to the discussion. We just need much more input from female evolutionary psychologists to get the bigger picture.
The second section covers sociality - kin selection, reciprocal altruism - and the evolution of emotions, such as gratitude, obligation, guilt, frienship, that aid or aided us in our inclusive fitness maximization behavior. Section three is about hierarchy and status and how we 'deceive ourselves in order to deceive others better'. Wright puts together an interesting whole which meshes genetic and environmental determinisms with developmental and behavioral plasticity and flexibility. Not forgetting how this evolved in an environment we no longer live in and is therefore always potentially maladaptive. Perhaps he only just manages to get away with it!
The final section is a focus on morality. Wright reveals himself, and Darwin, as utilitarians. This obviously will sit best with those readers who are also utilitarians or at least, like myself, have a soft spot for J S Mill and Utilitarianism. Wright is not afraid to discuss how problematic morality can be for EP. 'The situation is, in short, a mess' he admits at one point. But most evolutionary psychologists agree with Wright that out evolved instincts for survival as social beings gives most of us a sense of how to behave in what we term a moral way.
It would be possible to argue with many things in this book but it is so successful in getting the general ideas across and facing the problems that arise from these ideas that disagreement with some of the actual content is almost irrelevant. It should not be the only book read on EP but it deserves to be one of the first. It has a great style and an essential openness and honesty.
A very readable and fun book on Evolutionary Psychology.......2007-06-12
This was one of my first books on the topic - and to this day I find it one of the most thoroughly enjoyable and eye opening books for laymen in this field, like myself.
Robert Wright has written a very engaging and well organized book in explaining why we behave the way we do. Citing Darwin's own life through the chapters to illustrate the points of Darwinism was a brilliant idea and fun to read. Most part of the book explains viewing 'morality' (or the lack of it), in biological terms. It doesn't draw any lessons out of the story, in a way advocating to accept (our) human nature the way it is. The last few chapters, however, start drawing some conclusions and 'lessons' on morality which get rather flaky (e.g.: that a woman murdering a husband for self-defence should be punished as a lesson to others for the 'greater common good'), and frankly, annoying -- in particular as the end of such a great book.
Overall, it is still a must read for all those curious and intelligent souls out there who understand that self-awareness is the first step towards real happiness.
One of the most important books you'll ever read.......2007-05-07
While most theoretical science books can be rather dry, this one has a wry sense of humor, plus an excellent presentation of how the mind (brain) evolves through natural selection along with the already accepted physicality of the species.
The first half of the book many women might not like, but Robert Wright allows in the second half for the ability of mankind to rise above his or her innate nature.
You could almost imagine Charles Darwin saying-"Drat, why didn't I think of that,. It's a natural extension of my physical take on natural selection."
Book Description
A unique, scientific look into why we are all believers.
In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, the White Queen tells Alice that to believe in a wildly improbable fact she simply needs to "draw a long breath and shut [her] eyes." Alice finds this advice ridiculous. But don't almost all of us, at some time or another, engage in magical thinking? Seventy percent of Americans believe in angels; 13 percent of British scientists "touch wood"; 40 percent of Americans believe that astrology is scientific. And that is only the beginning.
In Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, Lewis Wolpert tackles one of the most important causes on the horizon of public debate: the nature of belief. Looking at belief's psychological basis and its possible evolutionary origins in physical cause and effect, Wolpert expertly investigates what science can tell us about those concepts we are so sure of, covering everything from everyday beliefs that give coherence to our experiences, to religious beliefs, to paranormal beliefs for which there is no evidence.
Customer Reviews:
The Great Ape that asked "Why?".......2007-10-07
I read this book as the last of a group of books comprising the recent works of Daniel Dennett (whew!)(Breaking the Spell), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God is not Great), and both of the works by Sam Harris (The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation). For many reasons and particularly because of Wolpert's straightforward theme, I regret I ended rather than started with Wolpert's book in the group. As you are no doubt aware, the theme/proposition of Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast is that the cause-and-effect wiring that showed up in our brains to permit the competitive edge* of complex tool-making is the same wiring that causes our children to ask innumerable questions beginning with "why" too soon after learning to speak syntactically. It is this drive to model our world by causes and effects that competitively distinguishes us as a species. We are an anxious bunch when left with too many unanswered "whys" and turn to stories of causal links or assign temporally correlated events as causally linked in order to reassure ourselves all is well...things have always and will continue to happen for reasons that may be in our control or in the control of one or more benevolent supernatural entities. Just as the scientific method often tests hypotheses that are not immediately dispelled by common sense, these stories of causal links do not necessarily need a foundation in the natural world...they just need to satisfy the cause-effect craving. As you are aware, correlation may indicate but does not necessarily equate with causation and so scientific investigators are left determining, and re-determining, the causal mechanisms, if any, in nature underlying the correlation. Unlike the scientific method, once these stories of casual links take root, we are wired to hold them fast even in the face of collaborated facts to the contrary.
*Sorry, I just couldn't help myself from punning.
Combining Wolpert's book with the recent works of the above-cited authors, one takes away a broader theme (see Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters) that perhaps we humans got this far by the extra caution taken when seeing patterns where none exist, by immediately projecting intent and anticipated actions onto other beings or objects (irrespective of whether these beings were present or ever existed) and responding to those projections, and by developing both our technologies and our myths due to our insatiable quest for causal links. When contemplating an existence of our conscious self beyond the lifespan of our amazing, yet mortal, brain, we naturally feel a part of something bigger than ourselves. If this something involves or is orchestrated by one or more supernatural entities, we have no way of scientifically knowing.
Wolpert ends his book in a fashion reminiscent of the late Stephen J. Gould (Rock of Ages) where religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are each given their own due respect/space (as you may recall Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria). To the extent scientific beliefs are nearly inaccessible to those without sufficient skills in critical analysis and mathematics and to the extent religious beliefs can take hold in the mind of a child in a day, the populating advantage appears to go to religious beliefs. Unlike Dawkins, Wolpert climbs no soapbox to cry for enhanced critical analysis, mathematics and scientific reasoning in American public schools. He shows little if any distaste for purposeful "scientific" misinformation fed children in home schools or schools supported by literalist religions. Perhaps Wolpert took the matter as far as he felt comfortable in his closing that religious belief systems should not abridge the rights of others.
Nice Concept, Bad Execution.......2007-09-22
Wolpert selected a very interesting topic for this book. And that's all the nice things I have to say about it. He makes a large number of claims that he doesn't bother to support with evidence or explanation. He does not cite his references, although they are listed in the back matter (helpful, but not terribly so, since a particular statement cannot be linked to its source). His paragraphs seem to start and stop willy-nilly and do not provide clear arguments to support his claims. It is unclear which of his claims he intends to support and which he intends to lob toward any ear that will listen.
In short, this book seems like it was written in an ad-hoc, stream-of-consciousness manner. The book does not clearly present its arguments, define important terms like "understand" (this is very important when discussing this topic), or lend itself to detailed study of the subject matter. This book was not yet ripe for the printing, but it was printed nevertheless. Do us all a favor and don't support the publishing of bad books by purchasing them.
A Good Summary of Complex New Evidence.......2007-08-05
Six Impossible Things before Breakfast, by Lewis Wolpert.
This book was very interesting to me as an analysis of human understanding of causation and the importance of our understanding of causation in how we perform other intellectual functions. In particular, we formulate beliefs. One of the characteristics that separates us even from the closest animals is our ability to understand and rationalize cause and effect. Animals, even the great apes, have very limited understanding -- if any -- of causality. We know that from subjecting those animals to experiments in which they would be rewarded for exercising any intellectual capacity that they have.
Human beings have a strong motive to understand causation. Sometimes the intellectual process by which we reach conclusions about causation is described as a "belief engine." There is no doubt that our belief engine is somewhat faulty. Our belief engine "prefers quick decisions, it is bad with numbers, loves representativeness, and sees patterns where often there is only randomness. It is too often influenced by authority, and it has a liking for mysticism." p. 220. We suffer from the "Pollyanna principle," being far more likely to focus on and remember positive rather than negative reports about ourselves. The "Lake Wobegon effect," explains why 94% of college professors believe that they are better than their average colleague at their jobs. The "interviewer illusion" guarantees that we will, as a rule, feel far more confident in our ability to predict the future of others than an objective retrospective analysis would justify. We are overconfident in the correctness of our own judgments. The "Barnum effect" means that we will see merit in vague and generalized descriptions.
We tend to make up stories to explain what we have observed, and the stories often overcome the actual memories. We jump to conclusions on inadequate evidence and then hold to those conclusions with vigor. Placebos work. We are capable of internalizing "forced beliefs," manufactured beliefs forced on us by society or authority. These "forced beliefs" are often manufactured to support other beliefs "that are poorly supported by evidence." Page 88.
We are pathetically bad at evaluating risks, fearing the airplane flight more than the automobile trip to the airport. We have no natural ability to infer what we learn from statistics. We are good at acquiring superstitious beliefs, and terrible at getting rid of them. We are vulnerable to both hypnotic and ordinary suggestion. Studies have shown just how susceptible we are to the implantation of false memories.
We are subject to a strong confirmation bias, which means that once we have formed a belief, we are far more likely to credit new evidence that conforms to those beliefs then evidence that challenges them.
It is difficult to understand the human mind because the instrument with which we must understand it is, of course, the human mind. Studies of animals, babies, children, and people with various kinds of brain damage can give us valuable clues. Carefully designed experiments, with adequate controls, can give us valuable hints. Studies of obviously false beliefs held by people with mental illnesses or under the influence of mind altering drugs can help us understand as well. Even this is difficult because "there are no sharp dividing lines between normal beliefs and delusional beliefs." Page 101. Still, susceptibility to delusions has a strong genetic component, suggesting that our susceptibility is somewhat hardwired into the brain.
We are naturally resistant to scientific evidence because scientific results are frequently counterintuitive. "Almost without exception, any common-sense view of the world is scientifically false." Page 203.
Wolpert proposes that some of the same pathways that developed because of our understanding of causality, particularly tool use, help us to understand our "belief engine." He contends that, "religion and causal beliefs in general had their evolutionary origin in toolmaking, which drove evolution." He admits that the evidence is limited but he could find little or no evidence to contradict this hypothesis. Our belief system is genetically programmed, by which Wolpert means, "that there are circuits in our brain that are set up by the genes that predispose us to have religious and mystical beliefs. It is hard to imagine that the religious and mystical beliefs found in every culture have some other origin." Page 217-18.
This is a short book. It is a good introduction to the science of how the human mind works. I had heard of a lot of the studies discussed in this book before. The author does an excellent job of summarizing the significance of the studies. I enjoy books that explain the cutting edge of science to non-scientists. Wolpert goes into my short list of successful popularizers of complex science.
Fantastic .......2007-06-23
It is quite beautiful how Wolpert sets up the book to explain how some can reject his premise of a non-existent god. The facts contained in this book, and the occasional theory (though well-backed ones), are brilliant and come from a man with an extensive background in the field he writes about, taking special care to write in a way anyone, even an unscientific mind, can understand. It is fantastic how someone can understand, through this book, why they reject certain arguments (specifically that a god is irrational) yet walk away still denying everything, holding on to their old beliefs, knowing exactly how. Though that of course is only a mere portion of the book. Brilliant.
The Superstition of Scientism.......2007-06-09
Lewis Wolpert reveals two personas in this book. One persona is reasonable and makes thoughtful statements about evolution and beliefs. The other persona is obnoxious and irrational--the proverbial village atheist. This is an example of the bad persona:
"I am committed to science and believe it is the best way to understand the world. I am an atheist reductionist materialist. I know of no good evidence for the existence of God." (p. x)
Wolpert knows the evidence of God's existence and discusses the evidence throughout the book. In an ongoing act of self-deception, Wolpert fails to recognize the evidence and admit that it is there. More than truth, reason, and integrity, Wolpert loves the methodology of science to the point of succumbing to the gratifications of scientism, whatever they are.
In the New York Times on February 19, 2006, Leon Weiseltier called scientism "one of the dominant superstitions of our day." Wolpert spends a whole chapter on the beliefs of scientists and touches on every possible false belief (e.g., confabulations), but does not even mention this aberration. However, it may be this article Wolpert is thinking of when he says:
"It is now asserted by some that science itself is the modern superstition." (p. 159)
Is Wolpert confabulating the word "science" whenever he sees the word "scientism." Science is only one mode of inquiry. Scientism is an excessive and irrational reliance on this branch of knowledge. Another method of inquiry is philosophy, which is what Wolpert is doing when he explains the difference between scientific beliefs and non-scientific beliefs and extols science as "the best way to understand the world."
The good persona uses the following quote as the epigraph for Chapter 2 and expands on the insight:
"This act of mind has never yet been explain'd by any philosopher." (David Hume 1739)
"The word belief, while freely and widely used to account, for example, for causes in the previous chapter, is nevertheless not easy to define. Neither philosophers nor scientists have been successful. David Hume, my hero philosopher, said of belief that he regarded it as a great mystery." (p. 23)
Conscious knowledge of simple facts is also a mystery. Take, for example, knowing that this page is white. It means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of the whiteness of the page. What is it? What are ideas and abstractions? What is the relationship between ourselves and our bodies? What is self-consciousness? The mind is indeed a mystery, and man is an indefinability that becomes conscious of its own existence. Plain common sense tells us human beings are embodied spirits and evidence of God's existence.
Continuing with quotes that show Wolpert at his best:
"There is a strong motive for explaining any phenomena that affect us in causal terms, an ingrained need to organize the world cognitively--both the external world and the internal world." (p. 3)
Thomas Aquinas couldn't have said it better. Human beings have a drive to know and understand everything. It is this drive that causes us to think that the universe is intelligible and that everything has a reason, explanation, or cause. The assumption of the intelligibility of the universe has served us well in science, and we are inclined to hope that we can understand our own existence. Science by itself cannot make our own existence intelligible because human beings transcend matter.
The method of inquiry that makes our existence intelligible is metaphysics: the study of being as being. We can partially understand the mystery, indefinability, and spirituality of our intellect and will with the metaphysical insight that we are finite beings and that we were created by an infinite being.
Creation is a form of causality, and the reasonable Wolpert rejects Hume's empirical understanding of causality:
"David Premack, a psychologist, has pointed out that there are two classes of causal beliefs. One, as Hume suggested, is based on one event being linked to another, and can be called weak or 'arbitrary', for there need not be any obvious connection between them, like switching on a light. Animals can learn connections by the pairing of events through this process of associative learning. The other, which is uniquely human, is strong or 'natural' causality, and is programmed into our brains so that we have evolved the ability to have a concept of forces acting on objects." (p. 27)
In fact, Wolpert goes beyond this limited understanding of causality as force by endorsing the ideas of Jean Piaget:
"Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist whose studies on the development of thinking in children have been very influential, held that the development of infants' understanding of their environment was the result of their active manipulation and exploration of objects, and that they constructed reality through converging lines of sensory and motor information. One source of their understanding of causes came from the infants' own actions: the actual experience of producing a movement plays a key role." (p. 35)
Wolpert is saying that our understanding of causality is rooted in our experience as infants of free will. Since many "atheist reductionist materialist" say free will is an illusion, the good Wolpert is taking a different point of view than the bad Wolpert.
Another example of his rejection of the limiting assumptions of hardcore materialism is the following quote:
"More generally, as David Hume made clear, there is no experience of 'self' as something distinct from our body." (p. 33)
If the self was distinct from the body, then there would not be one being--man--but two beings: the body and the self. The unity of man is the insight that caused medieval philosophers to abandoned Greek dualism--the idea that body and soul are two separate substances.
The following quote shows that Wolpert understands the importance of conceptual thinking in the evolution of human beings:
"It was Kenneth Oakley in 1949 who wrote 'Modern civilization owes its form to machine-tools, driven by mechanical energy; yet these perform in complicated ways and use only the same basic opertor as the simple equipment is the tool-bag of Stone Age man: percussion, cutting, scraping, piercing, shearing, and moulding.' He also made clear that the men who made tools such as the Acheulian hand axes must have been capable of forming in their minds images of what they were trying to achieve. 'Human culture in all its diversity is the outcome of this capacity for conceptual thnking...' This original idea of Oakley is at the core of this book." (p. 71)
Self-consciousness is the ability human beings have to turn in on themselves and catch themselves in the act of their own existence. The following quote brings the concept of self-consciousness into the evolutionary databank:
"It has been suggested that the opposability of the thumb, and the associated wondrous dexterity, completely transformed our ancestors' relationship with external objects. This relationship could have promoted human consciousness, as the manipulation of objects became a self-conscious activity; once the individual becomes an agent operating on external objects in numerous different ways, causal beliefs are involved." (p. 77)
Now for the bad Wolpert:
"Religion is almost always regarded by its believers as a way of obtaining help from supernatural powers, possibly from a god. Miracles can win further adherents, and the Bible has many examples, not least the dividing of the Red Sea to allow Moses and the Jews to cross. However, as David Hume argued, no miracle should be believed in unless the evidence was such that it would be miraculous not to believe in it." (p. 123)
Professor Wolpert is paraphrasing a direct quote from David Hume that he already shared with his readers on p. 85, so impressed is he with the quote's relevance and insight. Hume's argument against religion is puerile because it discusses miracles in general, rather than the particular miracles that are part of our salvation history.
Examples of historically established miracles are the exorcisms and healings of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. His miracles are reported in all four Gospels and the Q document. The Jewish historian Josephus referred to Jesus as "a doer of wonderful works" and even anti-Christian sources refer to Jesus as a magician. It is irrational to admit Jesus was a Jewish prophet and deny that he performed miracles because at the time Jesus lived miracles were generally believed to happen. The historical Jesus includes what Jesus did and how Jesus was perceived by his contemporaries.
Since Wolpert is not interested in the historical Jesus, his quoting Hume on miracles is gratuitous and ambiguous. Presumably, Wolpert was trying to say that God and Moses did not really part the Red Sea and that God and Jesus did not really cure anybody. This is consistent with his view that God doesn't really exist. Since the bad Wolpert is a "reductionist materialist," he does not think human beings really exist either. All that really exists for the confused Wolpert is whatever particle physicists say exists.
Wolpert apparently identifies with Thomas Hobbes (b. 1588), forgetting the different circumstances. Hobbes lashed out at his contemporary critics as follows:
"For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally and immediately I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. It is true that, if he be my Soveriegn he may oblige me to obedience, so as not by act or word to declare I believe him not; but not to think otherwise than my reason persuades me...For to say that God hath spoken to him...in a dream, is no more than to say he dreamed God spoke to him... "(p. 131)
What would God have to do to make Wolpert believe? Wolpert tells us:
"Of course, it is possible for God to easily reveal to scientists his current existence: God only has to perform, publicly, one or two miracles, for good evidence to be provided. This evidence could, for example, be quite simple, like turning a lake into good red wine, or providing an instant cure for cancer. Such miracles would almost certainly lead to religious beliefs among the skeptics." (p. 216)
Oliver Sacks, famous for Awakenings, told the following story about a 50-year-old patient that thought he was 20 because of a spinal cord damaged by alcohol abuse. With shame and regret, Sacks said that he handed the man a mirror and asked him if this was a 20-year-old man. His patient was horrified and cried out that he must be crazy. Fortunately, the patient soon forgot what had horrified him and he calmed down.
If a powerful angel changed a lake to red wine, it might neglect to keep the public from going crazy. God would not neglect anything. When God performs miracles and reveals things to mankind, individuals believe exactly what God wants them to believe. Faith is a gift from God. While Christians summon their fellow humans to believe, there is no obligation to believe as Hobbes thought. Nobody is criticizing Wolpert for not believing and there is no need for him to defend himself.
Miraculous historical events, such as the Easter experience, are just part of the story Christians tell in their summons to nonbelievers. That Jesus was a Jewish prophet is a large part of the story as is the idea that Jesus saved mankind for meaning. There is another reason to believe: When nonbelievers explain why they don't believe they always give bad reasons.
Average customer rating:
- "you say you want a revolution..."
- Wonderful Literature Review
|
The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology
Manufacturer: Wiley
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Developmental Psychology
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Physiological Aspects
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Social Psychology & Interactions
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Mental Health
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Physical
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Evolution
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Health Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Science Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Health, Mind & Body
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (3rd Edition)
-
The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture
-
The Murderer Next Door : Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill
-
Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence
-
Human Evolutionary Psychology
ASIN: 0471264032 |
Book Description
The foundations of practice and the most recent discoveries in theintriguing newfield of evolutionary psychology
Why is the mind designed the way it is? How does input from the environment interact with the mind to produce behavior? By taking aim at such questions, the science of evolutionary psychology has emerged as a vibrant new discipline producing groundbreaking insights. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, leading contributors discuss the foundations of the field as well as recent discoveries currently shaping this burgeoning area of psychology.
Guided by an editorial board made up of such luminaries as Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Don Symons, Steve Pinker, Martin Daly, Margo Wilson, and Helena Cronin, the text's chapters delve into a comprehensive range of topics, covering the full range of the discipline:
- Foundations of evolutionary psychology
- Survival
- Mating
- Parenting and kinship
- Group living
- Interfaces with traditional disciplines of evolutionary psychology
- And interfaces across disciplines.
In addition to an in-depth survey of the theory and practice of evolutionary psychology, the text also features an enlightening discussion of this discipline in the context of the law, medicine, and culture. An Afterword by Richard Dawkins provides some final thoughts from the renowned writer and exponent of evolutionary theory. Designed to set the standard for handbooks in the field, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology is an indispensable reference tool for every evolutionary psychologist and student.
Download Description
The foundations of practice and the most recent discoveries in theintriguing newfield of evolutionary psychology Why is the mind designed the way it is? How does input from the environment interact with the mind to produce behavior? By taking aim at such questions, the science of evolutionary psychology has emerged as a vibrant new discipline producing groundbreaking insights. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, leading contributors discuss the foundations of the field as well as recent discoveries currently shaping this burgeoning area of psychology. Guided by an editorial board made up of such luminaries as Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Don Symons, Steve Pinker, Martin Daly, Margo Wilson, and Helena Cronin, the text's chapters delve into a comprehensive range of topics, covering the full range of the discipline: Foundations of evolutionary psychology Survival Mating Parenting and kinship Group living Interfaces with traditional disciplines of evolutionary psychology And interfaces across disciplines. In addition to an in-depth survey of the theory and practice of evolutionary psychology, the text also features an enlightening discussion of this discipline in the context of the law, medicine, and culture. An Afterword by Richard Dawkins provides some final thoughts from the renowned writer and exponent of evolutionary theory. Designed to set the standard for handbooks in the field, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology is an indispensable reference tool for every evolutionary psychologist and student.
Customer Reviews:
"you say you want a revolution...".......2007-07-27
Well, it's here. This is exciting stuff. If you don't find it exciting it's possible that you are unconcious.
It actually is a relief to me that so much of this is considered controversial or fringe, which is so absurd. perhaps there's a conspiracy by creationists/intelligent designists to select evolutionists as their advanced life forms. I want to be carful not to miss anyone who 400 years after Galleleo's trial, decides now that he still needs forgiveness.
We are truely at the threshold of a brave new world.
Wonderful Literature Review.......2005-09-03
I think that David Buss has assembled a cohesive and thorough overview of evolutionary psychology. This book offers an in depth examination of the standard topics. I believe that this area of psychology will benefit scholars in the social sciences a great deal in the future, as it will lend some substantial connection to the life sciences. I would also recommend Barret,Dunbar, and Lycett.
Book Description
Moral thinking pervades our practical lives, but where did this way of thinking come from, and what purpose does it serve? Is it to be explained by environmental pressures on our ancestors a million years ago, or is it a cultural invention of more recent origin? In The Evolution of Morality, Richard Joyce takes up these controversial questions, finding that the evidence supports an innate basis to human morality. As a moral philosopher, Joyce is interested in whether any implications follow from this hypothesis. Might the fact that the human brain has been biologically prepared by natural selection to engage in moral judgment serve in some sense to vindicate this way of thinking--staving off the threat of moral skepticism, or even undergirding some version of moral realism? Or if morality has an adaptive explanation in genetic terms--if it is, as Joyce writes, "just something that helped our ancestors make more babies"--might such an explanation actually undermine morality's central role in our lives? He carefully examines both the evolutionary "vindication of morality" and the evolutionary "debunking of morality," considering the skeptical view more seriously than have others who have treated the subject.
Interdisciplinary and combining the latest results from the empirical sciences with philosophical discussion, The Evolution of Morality is one of the few books in this area written from the perspective of moral philosophy. Concise and without technical jargon, the arguments are rigorous but accessible to readers from different academic backgrounds. Joyce discusses complex issues in plain language while advocating subtle and sometimes radical views. The Evolution of Morality lays the philosophical foundations for further research into the biological understanding of human morality.
Customer Reviews:
Doing to others.......2006-09-03
"Morality", that sense of doing good, or at least avoiding harm, to others is one of humanity's treasured phrases. It is one of the characteristics that supposedly sets us apart from the other animals. We use the values imparted to it in judging others, as we are judged in turn. However, it remains an enigmatic term, carrying a host of definitions. And that's not counting the exceptions. Richard Joyce, for all his assertive title, isn't claiming to have the final word on morality. Instead, he's launching a project with areas of study that should be investigated further. Only one thing he insists on - as a product of evolution by natural selection, human beings will find the origins of that valued concept in our biological heritage.
Joyce's treatise is tightly organised. Given he addresses this complex idea in just over two hundred pages, discipline with words is a must. There are but six chapters in which to deal with questions plaguing our species since at least the invention of writing. In that short stack, he ties anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology and other fields together in a very neat package. Even such a short presentation doesn't force him to be terse. The material is clearly presented and sprinklings of wit keep it from bogging the reader down. However, the proposals are carefully, if succinctly, offered and the reader's attention must not flag.
Since "morality" hinges on the interactions between humans [other animals, whatever their behaviour traits, are deemed "amoral"] the key in Joyce's analysis is "reciprocity". Reciprocity hinges on a host of factors, from the genetic proximity of relatives to what kind of reputation one has - even across a large group. Game theory has been employed to demonstrate the variations reciprocity can achieve and the lengths to which it might go. The other aspect of interaction is language. For Joyce, setting moral standards and assessing behaviour against these can only be effective when the norms are understood. It's not possible to derive moral values from actions alone.
The expression of moral statements and the expectation that these will be respected is a significant aspect of maintaining human communities. The exchange of views within a group and the acceptance of certain behaviour patterns strengthens the identity of the community. As values were tested, individuals could discern who among the group could be trusted, particularly in times of difficulties. Those accepting the norms are more likely to gain status and, hence, reproductive success. These conditions lead to reinforcement of the values under consideration, making a moral sense an innate human characteristic. Not only is the application of moral values universal, but these values are projected beyond the small group to more extended communities with seamless ease. Joyce makes no attempt to define when, or even where, this process began. It was sufficiently distant in time to have made a sense of moral values part of the baggage our species carried out of Africa.
Having concluded that there's sufficient evidence to warrant declaring the morality is a evolved trait, Joyce asks "So what?" in a "philosophical tone of voice". This "tone" is applied to a number of philosophers who have addressed the issue of morality as a result of evolutionary development. He examines "The Naturalistic Fallacy" that has been attributed to George Moore early in the 20th Century. The claim imputed to Moore, that "ought" cannot be derived from "is", is misdirected, says Joyce. Several scholars, such as Robert Richards, William Casebeer and Daniel Dennett are reviewed on this and other issues - what, for example, is "virtue" and does it determine what is "ethical"? From this, Joyce moves to a discussion of which moral standards we should value. He is careful to caution readers not to feel they should derive specific moral beliefs from evolution. There's a massive leap from evolution giving us a moral sense to which elements we choose to apply it to. The capacity for moral judgement doesn't provide a prescription for specific behaviours.
Although Joyce is hardly the first philosopher to consider our evolutionary roots for ethics and morality, the succinct approach and clear writing make this an excellent starting point for someone new to the concept. Avoiding arcane propositions and pedantic language, the author provides a clear pointer for future study. No reader should feel intimidated by the prospect of taking up this book. We need more such work and workers dealing with defining what makes a human being. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Moral Skepticism Defended.......2006-02-04
Moral philosophers tend to take the content of morality as given, perhaps by intuition or our cultural heritage, and attempt to derive moral truth from a sparse set of assumptions, such a utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill), virtue theory (Aristotle), or synthetic a priori deontological notions (Kant). Other philosophers attempt to derive valid moral rules themselves on the basis of a neo-Platonic foray into the juggling of abstract universals (Rawls, Nozick, Singer, Dworkin). Perhaps I betray my position as a behavioral scientist by believing that morals are things that people have, like noses and tendencies to procrastinate, and should be studied scientifically rather than philosophically. Happily, I am not alone, however, as Richard Joyce takes the same position in his book, The Evolution of Morality.
Joyce recites the extensive body of evidence showing that there is a universal human morality observed in virtually all societies ever studied, including the thousand or so primitive hunter-gather societies that exist in the contemporary world. Of course, there are also strong contrasts in some moral principles across societies, but these tend to be confined to a few delicate areas, including gender relations and political philosophy, and they can doubtless be explained by level of economic development and political integration. But, if this is the case, it is unlikely that "ethical theory" can stand as a bastion of philosophizing. Rather, ethical theory is the study of the structure and evolution of human morality. This is the "moral skepticism" that Joyce embraces, and it is well taken.
The problem with traditional moral philosophy is that it has not recognized that morality is an evolved trait of our species, and had we evolved differently, we would have radically different morality. Therefore, morality cannot be derived from abstract, ahistorical axioms that would hold for any intelligent, social creature. Darwin understood this clearly when he wrote that if we had evolved from bee-like ancestors (quote in Joyce, p. 229), "unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters." Similarly, political philosophy would be much different in a race of intelligent termites, or even of chimpanzees, than of humans.
It is safe to say humans are the only species with a moral sense, although we have bred our domestic pets to appear to conform to our morality. Why has this occurred? Joyce suggests that in a complex society with many subtle norms of behavior and multi-dimensional relations among individuals, a moral sense is individually fitness-enhancing. The amoral sociopath, who behaves morally only when this suits his purpose, should in theory do better than the moral person, who is willing to sacrifice personally in order to uphold moral rules. But, humans tend to be "present-oriented", overvaluing immediate pleasures and undervaluing long-term gains. A moral sense helps us be reasonable prosocial and prudential concerning our long-term interests, because it substitutes present pleasures and pains for future ones. For instance, I brush my teeth, and am courteous to my boss, because I would feel bad if I did otherwise, not because I am reckoning some trade-off between present and future well-being. As Hamlet says, "Conscience doth make cowards of us all," except the coward, who obeys societies rules, lives to have more offspring, while the hero is remembered only in books.
Average customer rating:
- Sorting out the Issues
- God sense, not nonsense
- A breath of fresh air
|
Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour
Kevin N. Laland , and
Gillian Brown
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Physiological Aspects
| Psychology & Counseling
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Mental Health
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Sociobiology
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Biology
| Biological Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Behavioral Psychology
| Behavioral Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Cognitive Psychology
| Behavioral Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Behavioral Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Cognitive Psychology
| Behavioral Sciences
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Cognitive Science
| Behavioral Sciences
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Evolution
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Zoology
| Biological Sciences
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Science
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Evolutionary Thought in Psychology: A Brief History (Blackwell Brief Histories of Psychology, 2)
-
Nature Via Nurture : Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human
-
Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution
-
Human Evolutionary Psychology
-
Defenders of the Truth: The Sociobiology Debate
ASIN: 0198508840 |
Book Description
Evolutionary theory is one of the most wide-ranging and inspiring of scientific ideas. It offers a battery of methods that can be used to help us understand human behaviour. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of this exercise is at the centre of a heated controversy that has raged for over a century. Many evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and psychologists have taken these evolutionary principles and tried using them to explain a wide range of human characteristics, such as homicide, religion and sex differences in behaviour. Others, however, are sceptical of these interpretations. Moreover, researchers disagree as to the best ways to use evolution to explore humanity, and a number of schools have emerged. 'Sense and Nonsense' provides an introduction to the ideas, methods, and findings of five such schools, namely, sociobiology, human behavioural ecology, evolutionary psychology, memetics, and gene-culture co-evolution. Carefully guiding the reader through the mire of confusing terminology, claim and counter-claim, and polemical statements, Laland and Brown provide a balanced, rigorous analysis that scrutinizes both the evolutionary arguments and the allegations of the critics. This is a book that will be make fascinating reading for popular science readers, undergraduate and postgraduate students (for example, in psychology, anthropology and zoology), and to experts on one approach who would like to know more about the other perspectives. Having completed this book the reader will feel better placed to assess the legitimacy of claims made about human behaviour under the name of evolution, and to make judgements as to what is sense and what is nonsense.
Customer Reviews:
Sorting out the Issues.......2005-08-13
Kevin Laland is a prominent researcher in gene-culture coevolution, niche construction (the study of how organisms modify their social and physical environment, and thereby modify their own gene pool) and animal social learning. Gillian Brown is a primatologist who studies parenting behavior. Their book is a study of six strands of evolutionary theory as applied to human behavior: (a) Darwin and his pre-sociobiology followers (including Galton, Spencer, Lorenz, Tinbergen, von Frisch, and Ardrey); (b) the founders of sociobiology, including Dawkins, Trivers, Hamilton, Maynard Smith, and E. O. Wilson; and three offshoots of sociobiology, (c) behavioral ecology (including Hill, Kaplan, Hawkes, and Chagnon); (d) evolutionary psychology (including Cosmides, Tooby, Daly, Margo Wilson, Pinker, Buss); (e) memetics; and (f) gene-culture coevolution (including Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, Boyd and Richerson, and Laland himself).
The title is inspired by the authors' impression that, despite the fact that the academic social sciences have virtually ignored evolutionary approaches, the public finds them very sexy and provocative, to the point where evolutionary research is continually influenced by political and journalistic concerns, and the science tends to be overwhelmed by the junk and the hype. I fully share this impression, and I think they have done a fine job in extracting the "sense" from the "nonsense." They even manage to treat memetics seriously, despite the fact that memetics' attempt to detach culture from reproduction, production, cooperation, conflict, and the other basic activities of social life cannot possibly succeed.
Laland and Brown vigorously defend the early Darwinists and sociobiologists against the many politically motivated attacks against them (they do not deal with religious critiques). While the authors recognize that their ideas have often eclipsed by more contemporary research, they find no major fault in the constitution of these two schools. I think this is a bad mistake. In the century from Darwin to E. O. Wilson, evolutionary researchers managed to isolate themselves from every mainstream social science, including economics, sociology, psychology, political science, and to a lesser extent, anthropology. It is futile to blame this on the mainstream. The fault lies squarely with the evolutionary theorists, who failed to make a convincing case for the position.
This is quite unforgivable, because mainstream social science has made many central contributions that must be integrated into evolutionary theory to provide a solid, scientific body of knowledge concerning human behavior. Laland and Brown give no reason for this isolation of evolutionary theory, except the trivial commonplaces mouthed by virtually everyone in this tradition (traditional social science is ideology, the mainstream is afraid of being tainted with the sins of eugenics and racist genetic determinism, and so on). The major problem facing evolutionary theory today is not to shuck the nonsense, but to account for its failure to become part of the mainstream, I believe, and Laland and Brown do not recognize this.
The very idea of forming schools of thought, such as behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, and gene-culture coevolution is an indication of the inability of evolutionary theory to consider itself a science. Scientists seek integration, not fragmentation. Behavioral ecologists, for instance, are anthropologists who study simple societies, while evolutionary psychologists are psychologists who study commonalities in human behavior across all societies. How could they possibly consider themselves "alternative" theories? They very idea is absurd, a capitulation to the natural human tendency to congregate in small groups of "insiders" whose major motivation is to triumph over the many groups of "outsiders" whose strange ways are threatening and unsettling.
This one issue aside, I find Laland and Brown very convincing in adjudicating among the various approaches, and in their plea for tolerance and exchange of information among them. Like the authors, I believe that gene-culture coevolution is the overarching principle that includes the others as subclasses. I also believe that gene-culture coevolution is the most promising basis for the integration of evolutionary with mainstream social science. The authors' only critique of gene-culture coevolution is that it tends to be highly mathematical and does not generate many empirical studies. I do not agree with this critique. Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, as well as Boyd and Richerson, have done admirable empirical work, and with the use of experimental game theory in recent years, we will have much more such research in the near future. The true critique of gene-culture coevolutionary theory, in my view, is its ignorance of and contempt for traditional social science. Unless this is overcome, evolutionary social theory will remain marginalized for the foreseeable future.
Of course, most potential readers of this book will have the same prejudices concerning the traditional disciplines as do the authors, and they should find this book a welcome and incisive corrective to the disarray within evolutionary social theory.
God sense, not nonsense.......2004-02-18
The final chapter of E O Wilson's Sociobiology was a bombshell whose shockwaves reverberate today. Kevin Laland and Gillian Brown set out to sift through the morass of evolutionary approaches to human nature that is has spawned.
This is a useful review of the various schools of research, although I would have liked a firmer conclusion than 'a pluralistic approach is best'. Sometimes the authors could be a little less polite and have a little more bite.
Good stuff overall though, probably most helpful for those new to the area, or for students looking for an introduction. The book is a little light in content, concentrating on methodology, but the emphasis on cultural processes, absent from many evolutionary discussions, is most refreshing.
Do Laland and Brown successfully separate the sense from the nonsense? No. But they do equip the reader with some of the tools to do it for herself.
A breath of fresh air.......2002-07-17
This book is both a great read, and an informative one, for anyone interested in human behavior, evolutionary theory, and the links between the two. The area of potential evolutionary bases to human behavior has traditionally been filled with much controversy, some fighting, scattered irresponsible speculations and pronouncements that at times have produced tragic effects, and quite often, more heat than light. Laland and Brown have produced a book that is truly a breath of fresh air. One of the things I liked most about Sense and Nonsense is that Laland and Brown had actually sat down to talk with--and listen to--many of the leading proponents of different "schools" of thought. They work hard in Sense and Nonsense to give a fair presentation of each different approach, before moving on in each chapter to provide their own analysis of the approach presented from their own perspective as working scientists. In the midst of an area in which some researchers have been prone to simply shout louder--often literally--at those they disagree with, Laland and Brown have truly taken the time to listen, reflect, and form considered and thoughtful judgements. This is a service to all of us: After reading their book, I know that I will always look reflect differently on researchers' claims of evolutionary bases of human behavior, whether that's hearing them at a conference, or reading a journal article, or the latest best-selling book or TV interview. If you want to improve your understanding of evolution and human behavior, get a guided tour through the area and its controversies by two thoughtful experts, and come out with a changed perspective that will likely always stay with you, then read Sense and Nonsense. Great book.
Customer Reviews:
The first of a new generation of texts for teaching psych.......2001-04-11
Is human nature infinitely variable from culture to culture, relatively unconstrained by our biology, or is there a single basic human biological nature that just varies in certain particulars from environment to environment ? We care about this not only from a scientific perspective, but even a political one, since our view of human nature is one of the foundations of political philosophy as well.
The evolutionary psychology (EP) approach is here. Rather than adding yet another field to the growing list of social psychology, personality psychology, biological psychology, depth psychology, behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, gestalt psychology, narrative psychology, transpersonal psychology, and so on endlessly, EP comes with the slogan that it can unify the whole mess.
Simply put, by understanding the process nature uses to design organisms, and applying that to human evolution, we discover what the mind is designed to do and how. It's the scientific equivalent of asking God for our original blueprints. Except that we have to infer the design from very imperfect information.
There have been several other good introductory EP texts, such as the excellent one by David Buss, a specialist in human mating patterns. There is also one by Cosmides and Tooby, authors of a landmark scholarly text in the field which contains a manifesto for distinguishing evolutionary psychology from the social sciences. There is even a reasonably good cartoon version of an overview of the field, by Evans and Zarate.
What is very special about *this* new text by Gaulin and McBurney is that they have NOT just issued another manifesto against social science or another highly focused text on human mating and explanations for altruism. They seem to have actually begun a new era in the field, its implied agenda all along, to provide a unified framework for studying all of psychology, from sensation and perception to cognition, social behavior, and culture. As if all of human behavioral variety can be explained from the start in terms of where we came from.
How does this potentially change psychology in general ? That's the main strength of this book. The authors make very clear that thinking in terms of the history of our species and the history of life in general; rather than isolated findings from loosely related experimental conditions; leads to very different conclusions at times. Like other fields, EP gives us a specific set of tools and protocols for investigating patterns in nature. But unlike other fields, it gives us a pegboard for hanging all those experimental results and investigating their relationship and what it tells us about ourselves and even our relationship to the rest of nature.
The question is of course whether it succeeds. Is evolutionary psychology really to the point yet where it is no longer a protoscience, but a central way to understand human behavior ? There remain some dedicated opponents of the field, like Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steve Rose ("Alas, Poor Darwin.") Their main and strongest objection seems to remain that it is too seductively easy to tell evolutionary stories about human behavior, stories that can't be tested empirically. Do the authors address this sufficiently to offer EP as a "new psychology ?"
Surprisingly, yes, I think they do. Gaulin and McBurney address the real technical issues raised by the youthful status of the field. They don't offer a strongly deterministic account of human beings blindly following the programming of their genes, they clearly communicate a biologically informed perspective on human behavior. Our behavior not only has a very real and explorable relationship to animal behavior, but it has a discernable relationship to evolutionary process.
Most importantly of all, the authors make clear that EP does not have to, and does not, stand on its own from vague untestable evolutionary theories, or "just so stories." It truly does provide a new way of making sense of what we already know from existing psychological experiments, and shedding new light on them with additional testable predictions.
This is not only a milestone text in psychology teaching, but also an exemplary text in general. It is exceptionally clearly written, with crisp prose with outstandingly good organization.
I had one quibble with the text, which is the annoying tradition, seemingly taken from Cosmides and Tooby's maifesto "The Adapted Mind," of spending a lot of time attacking the "standard social science model" of infinitely mutable human nature. The "SSSM" probably seems more a worthy target for its political implications than its role in social science. If human nature is infinitely mutable, it is also infinitely perfectable, and therefore suggests "utopian" goals and certain kinds of solutions to social problems. This is where tempers really flare, and we start getting the usual accusations of people being fascists or marxists or racists or supporters of eugenics or supporters of unrealistic social engineering. I think the tradition of attacking the "SSSM" it just a more veiled way of playing politics the way Wilson, Lewontin, and Gould did in the early days of sociobiology.
Since leading figures in most other fields have also attacked the blank slate view of human nature, this casts such rhetoric as a bit of a strawman rather than really distinguishing EP from realistic portrayals of modern social scientists and anthropologists. I suppose this sort of rhetoric is attributable somewhat to the followers of the field trying to create its niche in academia. But it is a distraction that for me takes away from an otherwise wonderful text. It's time to "just say no" to the silly idea of suppressing evolutionary thinking, the most important principle in life sciences, just to keep extremists happy. It's time to take the implications of a wondrous evolving natural world more seriously and begin a new era of learning about ourselves from those implications. It's time to start teaching psychology as if we took our own biological science seriously, and begin to study human nature in earnest. This is an exceptional first step.
Book Description
Why do people resort to plastic surgery to look young? Why are stepchildren at greatest risk of fatal abuse? Why do we prefer gossip to algebra? Why must Dogon wives live alone in a dark hut for five days a month? Why are young children good at learning language but not sharing? Over the past decade, psychologists and behavioral ecologists have been finding answers to such seemingly unrelated questions by applying an evolutionary perspective to the study of human behavior and psychology. Human Evolutionary Psychology is a comprehensive, balanced, and readable introduction to this burgeoning field. It combines a sophisticated understanding of the basics of evolutionary theory with a solid grasp of empirical case studies.
Covering not only such traditional subjects as kin selection and mate choice, this text also examines more complex understandings of marriage practices and inheritance rules and the way in which individual action influences the structure of societies and aspects of cultural evolution. It critically assesses the value of evolutionary explanations to humans in both modern Western soc
The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology
Introducing Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Edition
The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating
