DOCSLIB.ORG

Culture and the Evolution Learning of Social

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 about human behavior. In- deed, some of the apparent differences may be more semantic than substantive. Social learning is the key process underlying these evolutionary paradigms. Here I argue that human learning mechanisms are products of natural selection, and hence process information in ways that reflect evolutionary design. I review common objec- tions to this hypothesis, including (1) learning processes are uncoupled from genetics and biological adaptation; (2) culture (or its effects) is partly extrasomutic; (3) culture, by most definitions, involves mental phenomena, including conscious thought; (4) culture involves the use ofarbitrary symbols to communicate information; (5) culture appears to have emergent properties at the group level, such as shared values and beliefs resulting in political and religious institutions; (6) culture involves historical processes; and (7) com- plex culture is uniquely human-we need an explanation for why the human species alone evolved such extensive social learning aptitudes. I suggest that these controversies can be resolved, although empirical tests are difficult. Received October 16, 1996; revised October 24, 1996; accepted October 25, 1996. Address reprint requests and correspondence to: Mark V. Flinn, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Evolution and Human Behavior 18: 23-67 (1997) 0 Elsevier Science Inc., 1997 1090-5138/97/$17.00 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S10902-5138(96)00046-5 24 M.V. Fhnn I posit that social competition was a primary selective pressure on human mental abilities (Alexander 1989) and that this favored domain-general, constructivist learning capabilities (e.g., Quartz and Sejnowski, in press) that can manage context-dependent analysis and integrate information from domain-specific mechanisms (Hirschfeld and Gelman 1994; MacDonald 1991; Sperber 19%). Humans are unique in the extraordi- nary levels of novelty that are generated by the processing of socially learned informa- tion. Human culture is cumulative; human cognition produces new ideas built upon the old. To a degree that far surpasses that of any other species, human mental processes must contend with a constantly changing information environment of their own cre- ation. Cultural information may be especially dynamic because it is a fundamental as- pect of human social competition. Apparently arbitrary changes in cultural traits, such as clothing styles, music, art, food, dialects, and so forth, may reflect information arms races among social competitors. The remarkable developmental plasticity and cross- domain integration of some cognitive mechanisms may be products of selection for spe- cial sensitivity to variable social context. Human “culture” is not just a pool or source of information; it is an arena and theater of social manipulation and competition. Studies of human behavior-including language, kinship, mating relationships, subsistence, economics, and politics-generally are consistent with an evolutionary basis for social learning, but often they fail to add specific new knowledge about the mecha- nisms. Analyses of cognitive aptitudes underlying language, kinship, and so forth, often are inconclusive because cultural information (and consequent behavior) involves com- plex interaction among history, environmental variation, ontogenetic pathways of men- tal processes, and specific context. I suggest that empirical tests of evolutionary culture theory must build upon identification of apparent universals and examine individual variability by incorporating developmental psychology, environmental conditions, and social and historical context. This synthesis would benefit from enhanced cooperation between cognitive psychologists and cultural anthropologists. 0 Elsevier Science Inc., 1997 KEY WORDS: Culture; Evolution;Learning; Psychologicalmechanisms; Social competition. ecent modifications of evolutionary theory have kindled renewed inter- est in relations between culture’ and biology. New concepts of learning as an adaptation (J.L. Gould 1986; Johnston 1982) have inspired new mod- els of culture (e.g., Alexander 1979a, 1990a; Boyd and Richerson 1985; LumsdenR and Wilson 1981; Sperber 1996). Although there is general agreement that evolutionary theory is useful for understanding human behavior and culture, impor- tant issues remain unresolved, and directions for empirical research are enigmatic. Some models, beginning with a population genetics paradigm, posit that cul- ture is a distinct “co-evolutionary” system because transmission of cultural traits via social learning is separate from transmission of genes via DNA replication (e.g., Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Dawkins 1982; Richerson and Boyd 1978; Durham 1991; Rindos 1986b). Culture and genetics are viewed as different, albeit interacting, types of inheritance processes. Grganically evolved (i.e., genetically controlled) “learning biases” may influence culture content, but the property of transmissibility of socially learned information is considered sufficient to distin- ‘By “culture” I refer to common (non-exclusive) usage of the term in social science. I do not find it important here to distinguish among the various definitions. I use “information” as a more specific term. Culture and the Evolution of Social Learning 25 guish it from other environmental effects on the phenotype. This approach repre- sents cultural evolution as analogous to organic evolution. Other models, originating from a Tinbergian ethological paradigm, emphasize that evolved mental or psychological processes constrain culture. Human psychol- ogy (including learning aptitudes) and, hence, behavior are posited to have been shaped by natural selection (e.g., Alexander 1979a; Barkow 1989b; Irons 1979a; Lumsden and Wilson 1981; Cosmides and Tooby 1995). Sources of controversy in- clude the genetic basis, degree of specificity, ontogeny, and plasticity (particularly in regard to modem social conditions) of psychological processes (e.g., Daly and Wilson 1995; Symons 1989). The objective of this paper is to examine a key issue underlying this new body of culture theory: the evolutionary basis for social learning. Here I attempt to inte- grate models of culture with knowledge of learning processes from behavioral ecol- ogy and psychology. Empirical studies of culture from evolutionary perspectives are briefly reviewed, and unresolved theoretical problems discussed. I argue that human learning mechanisms are products of natural selection, and hence process informa- tion in ways that reflect evolutionary design. I posit that social competition is a pri- mary selective pressure on human mental abilities (Alexander 1989; Humphrey 1984) that has favored some domain-general, constructivist learning capabilities (e.g., Quartz and Sejnowski, in press) that can manage context-dependent analyses and integrate domain-specific mechanisms (Hirschfeld 1994; MacDonald 199 1; Sperber 1996). This argument remains speculative because it lacks information about (1) the developmental ontogeny and epigenetics of cognitive processes, (2) the influ- ence of environmental conditions and historical context on information choice, and (3) the dynamics of the use and manipulation of information in social competition. COMMON GROUND Anthropology has identified several important relations between biology and cul- ture. First, human “aptitudes” for culture are products of natural selection, evi- denced by (1) increases in cranial capacity from australopithecines to modem humans (Holloway 1975; Spuhler 1959; Wolpoff 1995), and (2) cognitive differ- ences between humans and other primates (Byrne 1994; Cheney and Seyfarth 1990; Gibson and Ingold 1993; Griffen 1984; Holloway and de la Coste-Lereymondie 1982; Quiatt and Reynolds 1993; Parker and Gibson 1979, 1990). Second, “biologi- cal needs” are facilitated by culture, such as acquiring sufficient food, protection from predators and the elements, reproduction,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oxford Handbook of Developmental Behavioral Neuroscience
    OXFORD LIBRARY OF NEUROSCIENCE Editor-in-Chief GORDON M. SHEPHERD Oxford Handbook of Developmental Behavioral Neuroscience Edited by Mark S. Blumberg John H. Freeman Scott R. Robinson 3 2010 Introduction: A New Frontier for Developmental Behavioral Neuroscience Mark S. Blumberg, John H. Freeman, and Scott R. Robinson As editors of this volume, we wrestled with alter- (2) to highlight current opportunities to advance native titles to capture what we felt was a theo- our understanding of behavioral and neural devel- retically connected but highly interdisciplinary opment through enhanced interactions between fi eld of science. Previous edited volumes that have DP and its sister disciplines. addressed related content areas were published In 1975, in his infl uential book Sociobiology: over a 15-year span beginning in the mid-1980s T e New Synthesis, E. O. Wilson famously looked under the label of “developmental psychobiology” forward to the year 2000 when, he predicted, (e.g., Blass, 1986, 1988, 2001; Krasnegor, Blass, the various subdisciplines of behavioral biology Hofer, & Smotherman, 1987; Shair, Hofer, & Barr, could be represented by a fi gure in the shape of a 1991). Although all three of the editors of the pre- barbell—the narrow shaft representing the dwin- sent volume have longstanding ties to the fi eld of dling domain of the whole organism (i.e., ethology developmental psychobiology (DP) and its parent and comparative psychology) and the two bulging society (the International Society for Developmental orbs at each end comprising the burgeoning fi elds Psychobiology), we also view our work as part of a of sociobiology and neurophysiology.
    [Show full text]
  • Modularity As a Concept Modern Ideas About Mental Modularity Typically Use Fodor (1983) As a Key Touchstone
    COGNITIVE PROCESSING International Quarterly of Cognitive Science Mental modularity, metaphors, and the marriage of evolutionary and cognitive sciences GARY L. BRASE University of Missouri – Columbia Abstract - As evolutionary approaches in the behavioral sciences become increasingly prominent, issues arising from the proposition that the mind is a collection of modular adaptations (the multi-modular mind thesis) become even more pressing. One purpose of this paper is to help clarify some valid issues raised by this thesis and clarify why other issues are not as critical. An aspect of the cognitive sciences that appears to both promote and impair progress on this issue (in different ways) is the use of metaphors for understand- ing the mind. Utilizing different metaphors can yield different perspectives and advancement in our understanding of the nature of the human mind. A second purpose of this paper is to outline the kindred natures of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, both of which cut across traditional academic divisions and engage in functional analyses of problems. Key words: Evolutionary Theory, Cognitive Science, Modularity, Metaphors Evolutionary approaches in the behavioral sciences have begun to influence a wide range of fields, from cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Gazzaniga, 1998), to clini- cal psychology (e.g., Baron-Cohen, 1997; McGuire and Troisi, 1998), to literary theory (e.g., Carroll, 1999). At the same time, however, there are ongoing debates about the details of what exactly an evolutionary approach – often called evolu- tionary psychology— entails (Holcomb, 2001). Some of these debates are based on confusions of terminology, implicit arguments, or misunderstandings – things that can in principle be resolved by clarifying current ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Darwinism Inspired Implementation of an Artificial
    P. Chanthini and K. Shyamala International Journal of Control Theory and Applications ISSN : 0974–5572 © International Science Press Volume 10 • Number 23 • 2017 Neural Darwinism Inspired Implementation of an Artifi cial Neural Network Model P. Chanthinia and K. Shyamalab aResearch Scholar, PG and Research Department of Computer Science, Dr. Ambedkar Government Arts College (Autonomus), Affi liated to University of Madras, Chennai, India. E-mail: [email protected] bAssociate Professor, PG and Research Department of Computer Science, Dr. Ambedkar Government Arts College (Autonomus), Affi liated to University of Madras, Chennai,India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract : Vast scope in exploration of the biological neural system and brain functions continually open rooms for improvement in Artifi cial Neural Network (ANN) studies. This work is an effect of an effort in adopting the biological theory “Neural Darwinism: Selection” by GM. Edelman into Artifi cial Neural Network Model (ANNM). The newly implemented ANNM has provided scopes in designing new ANNMs using different biological theories in addition to the traditional way. This work illustrates an ANNM having two distinct portions, one physically static and other functionally dynamic. Rather than using the conventional method of training for weight adjustment, this model uses static weight representation and dynamic selection of artifi cial neural representations according to different problems, mimicking a biological neural selection theory- experiential selection. The result of this work depicts the successful implementation of an ANNM through newly adopted theory, solving multiple unipolar problems like XOR and N-Parity problems where the conventional method will require two or more separate feed-forward networks trained for each problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Students Spotlight View Mismannered in This Issue
    H UMAN BE H AVIOR & EVOLUTION SOCIETY Summer 2008 Newsletter In This Issue View From the President’s Window Spotlight The Student Voice Call for Nominations! Competition Winners Conference News HBES 2008 Japan The next HBES Conference will be held at California Letters From the Editors State University, Fullerton May 27-31, 2009. Announcements Nominations for the HBES Career Awards Job Announcements Darwin 200 in Chile Daniel. G Freedman: Submit your nominations for the HBES Lifetime & 1927-2008 Early Career Contribution Awards. Read more... Resources View Spotlight MisMannered Students From the President’s Window Richard D. Alexander Doug Kenrick The Student Voice | Aaron Blackwell Steve Gangestad Our HBES president is Steve Instead of the typical MisMannered is currently on It is time to nominate Gangestad, Distinguished interview, in this edition, a well-deserved hiatus. I’d a new HBES Student Professor of Psychology we here from Richard like to take this opportunity Representative. Current at the University of New Alexander, winner of the to say a big thank you to student rep Aaron Blackwell Mexico. In this issue, Steve inaugural HBES Lifetime Doug for entertaining us in puts out the call for students continues a discussion on Career Contribution Award. the last few newsletters! interested in this post. patterns of citiations in the Prof. Alexander contiunes Stay tuned for upcoming Also, read field. He his discussion editions of the provides of topics MisMannered the winning some data on included in column. I am abstracts the growth of his HBES sure it will be from this citations of 2008 Keynote a treat! year’s HBES EHB articles.
    [Show full text]
  • A Memetic Framework for Cooperative Coevolution of Recurrent Neural Networks
    Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, San Jose, California, USA, July 31 – August 5, 2011 A Memetic Framework for Cooperative Coevolution of Recurrent Neural Networks Rohitash Chandra, Marcus Frean and Mengjie Zhang Abstract— Memetic algorithms and cooperative coevolution refinement techniques has been a major focus of study in are emerging fields in evolutionary computation which have memetic computation. There is a need to use non-gradient shown to be powerful tools for real-world application problems based local search, especially in problems where gradient- and for training neural networks. Cooperative coevolution decomposes a problem into subcomponents that evolve inde- based approaches fail, as in the case of training recurrent net- pendently. Memetic algorithms provides further enhancement works in problems with long-term dependencies. Crossover- to evolutionary algorithms with local refinement. The use based local search methods are non-gradient based and have of crossover-based local refinement has gained attention in recently gained attention [8], [9]. In crossover based local memetic computing. This paper employs a cooperative coevo- search, efficient crossover operators which have local search lutionary framework that utilises the strength of local refine- ment via crossover. The framework is evaluated by training properties are used for local refinement with a population recurrent neural networks on grammatical inference problems. of a few individuals. They have shown promising results in The results show that the proposed approach can achieve comparison to other evolutionary approaches for problems better performance than the standard cooperative coevolution with high dimensions [9]. framework. Cooperative coevolution (CC) divides a large problem into smaller subcomponents and solves them independently I.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Massive Modularity
    3 In Defense of Massive Modularity Dan Sperber In October 1990, a psychologist, Susan Gelman, and three anthropolo- gists whose interest in cognition had been guided and encouraged by Jacques Mehler, Scott Atran, Larry Hirschfeld, and myself, organized a conference on “Cultural Knowledge and Domain Specificity” (see Hirsch- feld and Gelman, 1994). Jacques advised us in the preparation of the conference, and while we failed to convince him to write a paper, he did play a major role in the discussions. A main issue at stake was the degree to which cognitive development, everyday cognition, and cultural knowledge are based on dedicated do- main-specific mechanisms, as opposed to a domain-general intelligence and learning capacity. Thanks in particular to the work of developmental psychologists such as Susan Carey, Rochel Gelman, Susan Gelman, Frank Keil, Alan Leslie, Jacques Mehler, Elizabeth Spelke (who were all there), the issue of domain-specificity—which, of course, Noam Chomsky had been the first to raise—was becoming a central one in cognitive psychol- ogy. Evolutionary psychology, represented at the conference by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, was putting forward new arguments for seeing human cognition as involving mostly domain- or task-specific evolved adaptations. We were a few anthropologists, far from the main- stream of our discipline, who also saw domain-specific cognitive pro- cesses as both constraining and contributing to cultural development. Taking for granted that domain-specific dispositions are an important feature of human cognition, three questions arise: 1. To what extent are these domain-specific dispositions based on truly autonomous mental mechanisms or “modules,” as opposed to being 48 D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary Biology of Decision Making
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology Psychology, Department of 2008 The Evolutionary Biology of Decision Making Jeffrey R. Stevens University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub Part of the Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Stevens, Jeffrey R., "The Evolutionary Biology of Decision Making" (2008). Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. 523. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/523 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in BETTER THAN CONSCIOUS? DECISION MAKING, THE HUMAN MIND, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONS, ed. Christoph Engel and Wolf Singer (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008), pp. 285-304. Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology & the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies. Used by permission. 13 The Evolutionary Biology of Decision Making Jeffrey R. Stevens Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14195 Berlin, Germany Abstract Evolutionary and psychological approaches to decision making remain largely separate endeavors. Each offers necessary techniques and perspectives which, when integrated, will aid the study of decision making in both humans and nonhuman animals. The evolutionary focus on selection pressures highlights the goals of decisions and the con­ ditions under which different selection processes likely influence decision making. An evolutionary view also suggests that fully rational decision processes do not likely exist in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Learning Is Cultural
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1993) 16, 495-552 Printed in the United States of America Cultural learning Michael Tomasello Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 Electronic mail: [email protected] Ann Cale Kruger Department of Educational Foundations, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303 Electronic mail: [email protected] Hilary Horn Ratner Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Ml 48202 Abstract: This target article presents a theory of human cultural learning. Cultural learning is identified with those instances of social learning in which intersubjectivity or perspective-taking plays a vital role, both in the original learning process and in the resulting cognitive product. Cultural learning manifests itself in three forms during human ontogeny: imitative learning, instructed learning, and collaborative learning - in that order. Evidence is provided that this progression arises from the developmental ordering of the underlying social-cognitive concepts and processes involved. Imitative learning relies on a concept of intentional agent and involves simple perspective-taking. Instructed learning relies on a concept of mental agent and involves alternating/coordinated perspective- taking (intersubjectivity). Collaborative learning relies on a concept of reflective agent and involves integrated perspective-taking (reflective intersubjectivity). A comparison of normal children, autistic children and wild and enculturated chimpanzees provides further evidence for these correlations
    [Show full text]
  • Biol B242 - Coevolution
    BIOL B242 - COEVOLUTION http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/Coevol/Coevol.html BIOL B242 - COEVOLUTION So far ... In this course we have mainly discussed evolution within species, and evolution leading to speciation. Evolution by natural selection is caused by the interaction of populations/species with their environments. Today ... However, the environment of a species is always partly biotic. This brings up the possiblity that the "environment" itself may be evolving. Two or more species may in fact coevolve. And coevolution gives rise to some of the most interesting phenomena in nature. What is coevolution? At its most basic, coevolution is defined as evolution in two or more evolutionary entities brought about by reciprocal selective effects between the entities. The term was invented by Paul Ehrlich and Peter Raven in 1964 in a famous article: "Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution", in which they showed how genera and families of butterflies depended for food on particular phylogenetic groupings of plants. We have already discussed some coevolutionary phenomena: For example, sex and recombination may have evolved because of a coevolutionary arms race between organisms and their parasites; the rate of evolution, and the likelihood of producing resistance to infection (in the hosts) and virulence (in the parasites) is enhanced by sex. We have also discussed sexual selection as a coevolutionary phenomenon between female choice and male secondary sexual traits. In this case, the coevolution is within a single species, but it is a kind of coevolution nonetheless. One of our problem sets involved frequency dependent selection between two types of players in an evolutionary "game".
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution by Natural Selection, Formulated Independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace
    UNIT 4 EVOLUTIONARY PATT EVOLUTIONARY E RNS AND PROC E SS E Evolution by Natural S 22 Selection Natural selection In this chapter you will learn that explains how Evolution is one of the most populations become important ideas in modern biology well suited to their environments over time. The shape and by reviewing by asking by applying coloration of leafy sea The rise of What is the evidence for evolution? Evolution in action: dragons (a fish closely evolutionary thought two case studies related to seahorses) 22.1 22.4 are heritable traits that with regard to help them to hide from predators. The pattern of evolution: The process of species have changed evolution by natural and are related 22.2 selection 22.3 keeping in mind Common myths about natural selection and adaptation 22.5 his chapter is about one of the great ideas in science: the theory of evolution by natural selection, formulated independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The theory explains how T populations—individuals of the same species that live in the same area at the same time—have come to be adapted to environments ranging from arctic tundra to tropical wet forest. It revealed one of the five key attributes of life: Populations of organisms evolve. In other words, the heritable characteris- This chapter is part of the tics of populations change over time (Chapter 1). Big Picture. See how on Evolution by natural selection is one of the best supported and most important theories in the history pages 516–517. of scientific research.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Group Selection Plays an Essential Role in Explaining Human Cooperation: a Sketch of the Evidence
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2016), Page 1 of 68 doi:10.1017/S0140525X1400106X, e30 Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence Peter Richerson Emily K. Newton Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California– Department of Psychology, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA Davis, Davis, CA 95616 94901 [email protected] [email protected] http://emilyknewton.weebly.com/ www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/richerson/richerson.htm Nicole Naar Ryan Baldini Department of Anthropology, University of California–Davis, Graduate Group in Ecology, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA 95616 Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] https://sites.google.com/site/ryanbaldini/ [email protected] Adrian V. Bell Lesley Newson Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California– [email protected] http://adrianbell.wordpress.com/ Davis, Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] [email protected] Kathryn Demps https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lesley_Newson/ Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725 [email protected] Cody Ross http://sspa.boisestate.edu/anthropology/faculty-and-staff/kathryn- Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501 demps/ [email protected] http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xSugEskAAAAJ Karl Frost Graduate Group in Ecology, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA 95616 Paul E. Smaldino [email protected] https://sites.google.com/site/karljosephfrost/ Department of Anthropology, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] http://www.smaldino.com/ Vicken Hillis Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California– Timothy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Human Behaviour 3Rd Edition Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 3RD EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK John Cartwright | --- | --- | --- | 9781137348012 | --- | --- Evolution and Human Behaviour 3rd edition PDF Book Since its first publication, The Expression has never been out of print, but it has also been described as Darwin's "forgotten masterpiece". He then invokes a principle of antithesis , through which opposite states of mind induce directly opposing movements. A discussion of the significance of Darwin's early notebooks can be found in Paul H. Aiyana K. Publications since ; see C. Zag rated it it was amazing Feb 13, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Who punishes promiscuous women? Darwin concluded work on the book with a sense of relief. Darwin also drew on his personal experience of the symptoms of bereavement and studied the text of Henry Maudsley 's Gulstonian lectures on Body and Mind. Although he had no experience in photographic publishing, Darwin suggested this new technique to John Murray. Charles Darwin. To ask other readers questions about Evolution and Human Behavior , please sign up. On 21 September , Darwin recorded a confused and disturbing dream in which he was involved in a public execution where the corpse came to life and claimed to have faced death like a hero. Average rating 4. The contributions to this volume demonstrate, with a high degree of theoretical and methodological sophistication--the maturity and freshness of this new paradigm in the study of human behavior. During the final and so-called genital stage of development, mature gratification is sought in a heterosexual love relationship with another. The first section includes two chapters that provide historical background on the development of human behavioral ecology and com-pare it to two complementary approaches in the study of evolution and human behavior, evolutionary psychology, and dual inheritance theory.
    [Show full text]