DOCSLIB.ORG

Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory Ben Winegard Grand Valley State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory Ben Winegard Grand Valley State University McNair Scholars Journal Volume 12 | Issue 1 Article 10 2008 What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate: Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory Ben Winegard Grand Valley State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair Recommended Citation Winegard, Ben (2008) "What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate: Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory," McNair Scholars Journal: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 10. Available at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair/vol12/iss1/10 Copyright © 2008 by the authors. McNair Scholars Journal is reproduced electronically by ScholarWorks@GVSU. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ mcnair?utm_source=scholarworks.gvsu.edu%2Fmcnair%2Fvol12%2Fiss1%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate: Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory Abstract I.1 Theoretical Overview of Human Evolutionary Theory In this paper we develop a general model to explain the hostility toward, and igno- Human evolutionary theory (used here rance of, human evolutionary theory (ET) interchangeably with ET1) is a theoretical in the social sciences. We first provide approach to the entire field of human sci- relevant theoretical background explain- ence motivated by the desire to illumi- ing the basics of ET. We then briefly nate human behavior by subjecting it to describe the history of, and reasons for, evolutionary analysis (Barkow, Cos- social science attacks against ET. After mides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss 1995; Tooby providing this background, we turn to & Cosmides, 2005). More specifically, our study of social science textbooks, it approaches human nature from an describe the logic of our model, and adaptationist perspective, attempting Ben Winegard specify four explicit predictions derived to discern the specific adaptations that McNair Scholar from it. Finally, we present the results of underlie and give rise to human behav- our study and discuss the significance of ior—especially social behavior (e.g., our findings. mating behavior, cooperation, coalitional behavior, family dynamics, etc.) (Sand- erson, 2001). Although often seen as contentious or controversial (see section II below; see also Rose and Rose, 2000), its ability to elucidate human behavior follows from two simple and uncontro- versial facts: 1) Evolution explains the nature of the biological world, and 2) Humans are biological creatures (Atran, 2005). If these premises are accepted— and most social scientists do accept them—ET should appear a natural, inevi- Robert Deaner, Ph.D. table, and fruitful approach to the study Faculty Mentor of human behavior. In fact, ET provides a productive metatheory for the social sciences, unlike other popular theoreti- cal perspectives such as rational choice theory, which assumes that individuals choose the ‘best’ action according to stable preferences with well-defined con- straints (Simon, 1955; Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000; Kanazawa, 2001). Because of its insistence on viewing humans as evolved organisms, ET asserts that an under- standing of natural selection and sexual selection is essential for a comprehensive understanding of human behavior (Mayr, 1985; Buss, 1995; Tooby and Cosmides, 2005). 1 There are several theoretical perspectives that apply evolutionary theory to human social behavior, including socio- biology, dual inheritance theory, behavioral ecology, and evolutionary psychology (see Smith, 2000), all with slightly different assumptions and methods, yet all similar at core. For simplicity, we use the umbrella term ET. GVSU McNair Scholars Journal VOLUME 12, 2008 119 I.2 Natural and Sexual Selection second type of attribute is illustrated by modern ET. Also important to ET was the peacock’s elaborate train. Although the socially oriented biological think- Darwin’s theories of natural selec- the train appears to have no direct surviv- ing of Wilson (1975/2000) and Trivers tion and sexual selection are essential to al function, it serves to attract peahens; (1971; 1972). Especially relevant are two understanding ET. Darwin was not the therefore, on average, peacocks with theories developed by Trivers: reciprocal first thinker to propose that life evolves; large, colorful trains leave more offspring altruism and parental investment. rather, he was the first thinker to pro- than do those with less elaborate trains Reciprocal altruism consists of pose a plausible mechanism2 explain- (Petrie & Halliday, 1994). delayed but mutual acts of benefaction ing why and how life evolves (Darwin Darwin’s theories established a between organisms (Trivers, 1971). For 1859/1958). His proposal can be reduced scientific paradigm for biology, and like example, if an animal shares food with to three principles: 1) Organisms vary in all paradigms, it has been continually another at time x and receives food back their ability to reproduce. Some chee- refined. For example, Hamilton’s (1964) at time y, both animals may benefit. tahs, for example, run faster than others theory of inclusive fitness shifted the Although reciprocal altruism has been and consequently can procure more focus of biologists from individuals and reported in animals as diverse as vampire resources; ceteris paribus, such cheetahs their direct reproductive success to genes bats (Wilkinson, 1984) and stickleback will survive longer and are likely to have and their differential replication (Grif- fish (Milinski, Pfluger, Külling, & Ket- greater reproductive success. 2) Organ- fin & West, 2002). Since genes are the tler, 1990), primates provide the best isms inherit traits from their parents. real unit of natural selection, Hamilton documented cases. Primates preferential- Fast cheetahs pass their running ability argued that biologists needed to pay at- ly groom individuals who groom them; to their offspring. 3) More organisms tention to inclusive fitness rather than di- they preferentially support those who are born than survive. Organisms that rect fitness. If, for example, genes in one support them (Schino, 2007). Reciprocal inherit traits that allow them to more ef- organism gave rise to the ability to detect altruism is important because it allows fectively interact with their environment shared genes in another—a brother or for the evolution of greater cooperation are more likely to survive long enough sister, son or daughter, cousin or nephew, among non-related organisms, a kind of to reproduce. The faster cheetahs, for for example—and also to the propensity cooperation that is especially prevalent example, because they are better at ob- to help those genes replicate (under the among humans (Barber, 2004; Lehman taining important resources, will survive right circumstances)3, those genes (be- & Keller, 2006). and pass on their traits. The statistical cause of their phenotypic effects) would Parental investment explains the result of this process is a pool of “fitter” be selected for. The theory of inclusive diversity of mating strategies in nature organisms (see Alcock, 2005, for many fitness allowed biologists to explain (see also Clutton-Brock, 1991; Dunbar, specific empirical examples). many otherwise puzzling phenomena. To 1995). Because of its complexities, the A useful distinction can be made be- take a familiar example, humans are of- theory cannot be properly explicated tween natural selection proper and sexual ten willing to make enormous sacrifices here; however, one important facet of selection. According to Darwin (1871), for relatives, sacrifices they would not it—an argument that goes back to Dar- organisms not only compete for environ- make for strangers or even for friends. win (1871)—should be noted. Darwin mental resources, they also compete to Given this reality, it is not surprising that argued that when choosing mates the attract and acquire mates. This process is kin terms are universal (Brown, 2004) sex that invests more in its offspring will termed sexual selection and leads to two and are capable of provoking intense be more discriminating. By definition, different types of attributes: 1) attributes emotions (for a readable account of at- females produce larger gametes which that enhance an organism’s ability to tempts to explain altruism biologically, require higher initial investment than compete with members of its own sex for see Dugatkin, 2006). do male gametes. This difference leads access to mates, and 2) attributes that at- to adaptive strategies of high relative tract the opposite sex (Andersson, 1994; I.3 Roots of Sociobiology mating effort in males and high relative Andersson & Iwasa, 1996). The first type parental effort in females (Low, 2000). In of attribute is illustrated by the disparity Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory many animal species, males invest enor- in size between male and female elephant was vitally important because it set mous amounts of energy attempting to seals. Male elephant seals are an aver- the stage for the gene-centered view of attract and procure mates—the elaborate age of three times larger than females evolution, a view that was clarified in the bower of the bower bird, the huge train because they have a long evolutionary sixties and seventies by Williams (1966) of the peacock—while females invest history of competing with each other for and Dawkins (1976), among others, and vast amounts of energy in birthing and access to females (Le Boeuf, 1974). The provided the theoretical underpinning of caring
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective on Gift Giving Among
    MAR WILEJ RIGHT BATCH Top of text An Evolutionary Psychology Top of CT Perspective on Gift Giving among Young Adults Gad Saad Concordia University Tripat Gill Case Western Reserve University ABSTRACT With evolutionary psychology used as the theoretical framework, two aspects of gift giving among young adults are investigated: (a) sex differences in motives for giving gifts to a romantic partner, and (b) the allocation of gift expenditures among various relations, including romantic partners, close friends, close kin, and distant kin members. As per the evolved sex differences in mating strategies, it is proposed and found that men report tactical motives for giving gifts to their romantic partners more frequently than women. Also, there are no sex differences in situational motives for giving gifts. In addition, women are aware that men use tactical motives more often; whereas men think that these motives are employed equally by both sexes. With regard to gift expenditures it is found that, for kin members, the amount spent on gifts increases with the genetic relatedness (r value) of the particular kin. When all relations (kin and nonkin members) are included, the allocation of gift expenditures were the highest to romantic partners, followed by those to close kin members and then to close friends. The latter finding is explained via the importance attached to the evolved psychological mechanisms linked to each of the above relations, namely, reproductive fitness (for partners), nonreproductive fitness (for close kin members), and reciprocal altruism (for close friends). ᭧ 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Base of text Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20(9): 765–784 (September 2003) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) ᭧ 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Politics and Law
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 38 Number 4 Summer 2004 pp.1129-1248 Summer 2004 Evolution, Politics and Law Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, Evolution, Politics and Law, 38 Val. U. L. Rev. 1129 (2004). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol38/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Kuklin: Evolution, Politics and Law VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 38 SUMMER 2004 NUMBER 4 Article EVOLUTION, POLITICS AND LAW Bailey Kuklin* I. Introduction ............................................... 1129 II. Evolutionary Theory ................................. 1134 III. The Normative Implications of Biological Dispositions ......................... 1140 A . Fact and Value .................................... 1141 B. Biological Determinism ..................... 1163 C. Future Fitness ..................................... 1183 D. Cultural N orm s .................................. 1188 IV. The Politics of Sociobiology ..................... 1196 A. Political Orientations ......................... 1205 B. Political Tactics ................................... 1232 V . C onclusion ................................................. 1248 I. INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 75 Issue 2 SYMPOSIUM: Article 4 Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care? 2009 The aN tures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook. L. Rev. (2009). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol75/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. The Natures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin† One of the abiding lessons from postmodernism is that reason does not go all the way down.1 In the context of this symposium, one cannot deductively derive a universal morality from incontestible moral primitives,2 or practical reason alone.3 Instead, even reasoned moral systems must ultimately be grounded on intuition,4 a sense of justice. The question then † Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I wish to thank the presenters and participants of the Brooklyn Law School Symposium entitled “Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care?” and those at the Tenth SEAL Scholarship Conference. Further thanks go to Brooklyn Law School for supporting this project with a summer research stipend. 1 “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.” JEAN-FRANCOIS LYOTARD, THE POSTMODERN CONDITION: A REPORT ON KNOWLEDGE xxiv (Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi trans., 1984). “If modernity is viewed with Weberian optimism as the project of rationalisation of the life-world, an era of material progress, social emancipation and scientific innovation, the postmodern is derided as chaotic, catastrophic, nihilistic, the end of good order.” COSTAS DOUZINAS ET AL., POSTMODERN JURISPRUDENCE 16 (1991).
    [Show full text]
  • The Morality of Evolutionarily Self-Interested Rescues
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2006 The orM ality of Evolutionarily Self-Interested Rescues Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation 40 Ariz. St. L. J. 453 (2008) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. THE MORALITY OF EVOLUTIONARILY SELF- INTERESTED RESCUES Bailey Kuklint Introduction ................................................................................................ 453 I. The Rescue Doctrine and Evolutionary Psychology ............................ 456 A . "Peril Invites R escue" ................................................................... 456 B. Evolutionary Psychology ............................................................... 457 1. Kin Selection ............................................................................ 458 2. R eciprocal A ltruism ................................................................. 459 3. Sexual Selection ....................................................................... 466 C. Evolutionary Behavioral Maxims .................................................. 469 II. M orality of R escue ............................................................................... 473 A . U tilitarianism .................................................................................. 477
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Approaches to Human Behavior
    EC_2018_A03 Evolutionary approaches to human behavior The “New Synthesis” and Sociobiology Genes as the units of selection: “Replicators” and “Vehicles” (organisms) Evolution of behavior from the genes’ “point-of-view” Individual Fitness and “Inclusive Fitness” Kinship : “Coefficient of relationship” (S. Wright) and the “Hamilton’s Rule” WD Hamilton: “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour”(1964) EO Wilson: “Sociobiology” (1975) [Wilson & Wilson 2007: Group Selection?] R Dawkins: “The Selfish Gene” (1976) 1 EC_2018_A03 Altruism and the Hamilton’s Rule: B x r > C r = the genetic relatedness of the recipient to the actor B = additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient C = reproductive cost to the actor Direct Fitness (Direct descendants) + Inclusive Indirect Fitness Fitness (relatives that survive thanks to the subject’s help) x r W.D. Hamilton & Robert Axelrod Altruism and cooperation between unrelated individuals: The “Prisioners’ dillema” Axelrod & Hamilton (1981): The Evolution of Cooperation 2 EC_2018_A03 Sociobiology R. Dawkins (1976) R. Dawkins (1982) E.O. Wilson (1975) J. Alcock (2003) Evolutionary Psychology Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (The “Santa Barbara Church”) Evolution of human behavior: (“nature x nurture”...) The “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation” (EAA) Modularity: the metaphor of the “Swiss army knife” Cognitive adaptations for social exchange Detection of social rules’ violators Perception of ingroup/outgroup cues (race etc) Modularity and “Evoked Culture” Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby (1992) 3 EC_2018_A03
    [Show full text]
  • 1995 – Volume 10 Issue 2
    Human Ethology Bulletin Editor: Glenn Weisfeld Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202 USA 1-313-577-2835 (office) 577-8596 (lab), 577-2801 (messages), 577-7636 (Fax), 393-2403 (home) VOLUME 10, ISSUE 2 ISSN 0739-2036 JUNE 1995 © 1995 The International Society for Human Ethology SOCIETY NEWS membership form. Events: Here we provide information on ISHE World-Wide-Web Server Is upcoming and past conferences. If you wish to have something posted, you will have to e- On-Line mail it to us. Full information on ISHE conferences will, of course, be provided, By Karl Grammer, ISHE Secretary including abstracts of past meetings. I began this ISHE electronic bulletin Electronic Publications: This is my personal board in March as a sl,lpplement to the Bulletin. experimental page. There is also a link to In the test phase which lasted a week, the Psycholoquy, the first electronic scientific server had more than 300 visitors. journal. My idea is to publish posters (which have been prepared in electronic form) as The server can be reached under this pictures, and also figures to accompany journal URL: hUp:llevolution.humb.unvie.ac.at. For articles, such as videoclips, 3-D graphs, color access you need a direct Internet connection and pictures, and sounds. These things have been one of the following programs: Mosaic or difficult or impossible to publish previously. Netscape; both come in versions for either If there is enough interest, we will provide an Windows, MacOs or Unix. You can get both electronic journal for behavioural analysis. programs for free on the net.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Human Mate Choice
    Evolution of Human Mate Choice David C. Geary, Jacob Vigil, and Jennifer Byrd-Craven University of Missouri – Columbia This article provides a review of evolutionary theory and empirical research on mate choices in non-human species and used as a frame for understanding the how and why of human mate choices. The basic principle is that the preferred mate choices and attendant social cognitions and behaviors of both women and men, and those of other species, have evolved to focus on and exploit the reproductive potential and reproductive investment of members of the opposite sex. Reproductive potential is defined as the genetic, material, and (or) social resources an individual can invest in offspring, and reproductive investment is the actual use of these resources to enhance the physical and social well being of offspring. Similarities and differences in the mate preferences and choices of women and men are reviewed, and can be understood in terms of simi- larities and differences in the form reproductive potential that women and men have to offer and their tendency to use this potential for the well- being of children. The study of human sexual behavior and human sex dif- mechanisms that operate within species and are principle ferences has been approached from many vantage points factors in the evolution of sex differences (Darwin, 1871). (Davidson & Moore, 2001; McGillicuddy-De Lisi & De These mechanisms are called sexual selection and involve Lisi, 2002) and in recent years has been viewed through the competition with members of the same sex over mates lens of evolutionary theory (Buss, 1994; Campbell, 2002; (intrasexual competition) and discriminative choice of mat- Geary, 1998; Low, 2000; Symons, 1979).
    [Show full text]
  • Culture and the Evolution Learning of Social
    ELSEVIER Culture and the Evolution of Social Learning Mark V. Flinn Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri Applications of modern evolutionary theory to human culture have generated several different theoretical approaches that challenge traditional anthropological perspectives. “Cultural selection” and “mind parasite” theories model culture as an independent evo- lutionary system because transmission of cultural traits via social learning is distinct from transmission of genes vla DNA replication. “Dual-inheritance” and “co-evolution” theories model culture as an intermediary evolutionary process that involves informa- tion from two inheritance systems: genetics and social learning. “Evolutionary psychol- ogy” theories emphasize that the evolutionary history of natural selection on mental pro- cesses links culture and biological adaptation; hence, cultural information is viewed as part of the organic phenotype and not an independent evolutionary system. Cross-cul- tural universals and scenarios of the “environment of evolutionary adaptedness” are used to identify characteristics of the “evolved mind” (human nature). “Behavioral ecol- ogy” theories examine relations between behavior and environmental context. Behav- ioral/cultural variations are viewed as products of flexible decision-making processes (evolved mind) that may respond adaptively to micro-environmental differences. It is difficult to devise empirical tests that distinguish among these theories, because they share many basic premises and make similar predictions
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Production and Political Ideology As Courtship Displays
    Political peacocks by Geoffrey F. Miller published as: Miller, G. F. (1996). Political peacocks. Demos Quarterly, 10 (Special issue on evolutionary psychology), pp. 9-11. The puzzle Suddenly, in the spring of 1986 in New York, hundreds of Columbia University students took over the campus adminstration building and demanded that the university sell off all of its stocks in companies that do business in South Africa. As a psychology undergraduate at Columbia, I was puzzled by the spontaneity, ardour, and near- unanimity of the student demands for divestment. Why would mostly white, mostly middle-class North Americans miss classes, risk jail, and occupy a drab office building for two weeks, in support of political freedom for poor blacks living in a country six thousand miles away? The campus conservative newspaper ran a cartoon depicting the protest as an annual springtime mating ritual, with Dionysian revels punctuated by political sloganeering about this year’s arbitrary cause. At the time, I thought the cartoon tasteless and patronizing. Now, I wonder if it contained a grain of truth. Although the protests achieved their political aims only inefficiently and indirectly, they did function very effectively to bring together young men and women who claimed to share similar political ideologies. Everyone I knew was dating someone they’d met at the sit-in. In many cases, the ideological commitment was paper-thin, and the protest ended just in time to study for semester exams. Yet the sexual relationships facilitated by the protest sometimes lasted for years. The hypothesis that loud public advertisements of one’s political ideology function as some sort of courtship display designed to attract sexual mates, analogous to the peacock’s tail or the nightingale’s song, seems dangerous.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Religion, and Values
    Science, Religion, and Values Institution: St. Francis University Instructor: Rosemary Bertocci SYLLABUS WEEK 1: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. The goal is to examine and differentiate positions on ways of relating science and religion in order to establish a starting-point for discussion. The main perspectives Dr. Bertocci will introduce are: A. Barbour’s representative figures for conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. B. Gould’s NOMA (respectful noninterference), with emphasis on historical reasons for conflict. C. Marty’s sine qua non for communication and interaction: (a) differentiate modes of inquiry and discourse, (b) promote a mutual respect across disciplines, and (c) recognize that the consciences of scientists and theologians demand “a lifelong changing in behavior” (conversatio morum) to match “a lifelong changing in intellect” (conversatio intellectus). D. McGrath’s account of interaction, with focus on its historical, theological, philosophical, and scientific aspects, and an explanation of the “anthropic principle.” E. Templeton’s introduction to humility theology, characterizing foundations for future research. F. Lonergan’s generalized empirical method, offering a key to unified science: Scientists and authentic theologians follow the same pattern of cognition – experiencing, questioning, direct insight, conceiving or formulating, reflective questioning, reflective insight, judging (with ongoing revision of judgments). Lonergan differentiates (a) authentic appropriation of authentic tradition, (b) unauthentic appropriation of unauthentic tradition, (c) authentic appropriation of unauthentic tradition, and (d) unauthentic appropriation of authentic tradition. Required Reading: Barbour, Ian G. “Ways of Relating Science and Religion.” Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues: A Revised and Expanded Edition of Religion in an Age of Science. HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Approaches to Creativity
    P1: OJL Trim: 7in × 10in Top: 0.498in Gutter: 0.871in CUUS1027-15 cuus1027/Kaufman ISBN: 978 0 521 51366 1 May 10, 2010 20:17 CHAPTER 15 Evolutionary Approaches to Creativity Liane Gabora and Scott Barry Kaufman 1. Introduction Studies at the intersection of creativity and evolution are not limited to investi- Many species engage in acts that could be gations into the biological evolution of a called creative (J.C. Kaufman & A.B. Kauf- highly creative species. Creative ideas them- man, 2004). However, human creativity is selves might be said to evolve through cul- unique in that it has completely transformed ture. Human creativity is distinctive because the planet we live on. We build skyscrap- of the adaptive and open-ended manner in ers, play breathtaking cello sonatas, send which change accumulates. Inventions build ourselves into space, and even decode our on previous ones in ways that enhance their own DNA. Given that the anatomy of the utility or aesthetic appeal, or make them human brain is not so different from that applicable in different situations. There is no of the great apes, what enables us to be so a priori limit to how a creative idea might creative? Recent collaborations at the fron- unfold over time. A cartoon character may tier of anthropology, archaeology, psychol- inspire the name and logo for a hockey team ogy, and cognitive science are culminating (the Mighty Ducks), which might in turn in speculative but increasingly sophisticated inspire toys, cereal shapes, cigarette lighter efforts to piece together an answer to this designs, or for that matter work its way into question.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Psychology
    E Evolution of Desire, The research in the years since its original publication. Desire has become a citation classic (more than David M. Buss 2,000 scholarly citations as of 2016). It is widely The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, used in college courses. It is used by scientists to USA guide mating research. And it is used by everyday readers to inform their own mating lives. Although one previous excellent book had been Synonyms written about the evolution of human sexuality – Donald Symons’s(1979) classic trea- Attraction; Mate preferences; Mate retention; tise, The Evolution of Human Sexuality – the goals Mate selection; Mating; Mating psychology; Mat- of The Evolution of Desire were broader than sex- ing strategies uality per se. It aimed to look at human evolved psychology of mating more expansively, including all the action that happens prior to, and after, sexual Definition activity proper – strategies of mate competition, mate attraction, mate selection, mate retention, This book provides a unified theory of human mate poaching, conflict between the sexes, mate mating strategies, anchored in the best scientific ejection, and remating over the life span. evidence available on sexual psychology. A key theoretical premise of The Evolution of Desire is that humans have a menu of mating strategies, not just a single one, and that some of Introduction these strategies show important gender differences. Humans most obviously have long-term mating The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human (sometimes called pair-bonding, committed mat- Mating was first published by Basic Books ing, or marriage), although this turns out to be rare (Buss 1994).
    [Show full text]