Noise, Logic, and the Span of Time
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ings did he suggest that the function per- function by moderating, through a variety of REFERENCES formed by an exaptation needs to be biologi- themes, our evolutionarily functional fear of death. Thus, recognition of our own mortali- Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. cal. As Buss et al. reported, Gould (1991) K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). offered two definitions of exaptation: "a fea- ty is a spandrel, and the practice of religion is Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. ture, now useful to an organism, that did not an exaptation. American Psychologist, 53, 533-548. arise as an adaptation for its present role, but Moreover, it is a priori unlikely that Gould, S. J. (1987). Freudian slip. Natural was subsequently coopted for its current func- such complex psychological phenomena can History, 96, 14-21. tion" (p. 43) and "features that now enhance meet the standards of evidence proposed by Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool fitness, but were not built by natural selection Buss et al. (1998). Specifically, they suggest- for an evolutionary psychology. Journal of for their current role" (p. 47). Thus, although ed that evidence of special design for a hy- Social Issues, 47, 43-65. exaptations always provide a current func- Gould, S. J. (1997). The exaptive excellence pothesized function be demonstrated before of spandrels as a term and prototype. Pro- tion, that function need not be biological. In concluding that any structure or behavior is fact, Gould's (1991) thesis is geared toward ceedings of the National Academy of Sci- adaptive. As an example, they presented the ences, 94, 10750-10755. exapted functions performed by the brain to hypothesis that female orgasm serves the serve psychological rather than biological adaptive function of facilitating sperm trans- functions. port, for which evidence is reportedly lack- Correspondence concerning this comment Additionally, Buss et al. (1998) sug- ing. It is thus concluded that female orgasm should be addressed to Theodore Beauchaine, Department of Psychology, State University gested that Gould (1991) used the term exap- does not serve the hypothesized adaptive tation "to cover novel but functionless uses of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794- function. Although instructive, this example 2500. Electronic mail may be sent to or consequences of existing characteristics" trivializes the difficulty of falsifying, at the tbeaucha@psych 1 .psy.sunysb.edu. (p. 539). My reading of Gould (1987,1991, phenotypic level, hypotheses about exapted 1997) suggests otherwise: Structures or char- psychological functions, such as the practice acteristics for which there are no identifiable of religion. There are at least two reasons for functions, either current or historical, are al- this. First, as outlined by Buss et al., exapta- ways spandrels. Thus, the term spandrel sub- tions "carry the additional evidentiary burdens Noise, Logic, and the sumes what Buss et al. referred to as func- tionless by-products. When a spandrel is of documenting both later co-opted functional- Span of Time coopted (exapted) for a function, it becomes ity, and a distinctive original adaptational an exaptation; there is no need to differentiate functionality" (p. 546). Thus, to confirm Lucian Gideon Conway III between spandrels and functionless by- the exapted function of religious practice, University of British Columbia products. Ironically, Gould (1991) coined one would be required to demonstrate (a) the terms exaptation and spandrel to avoid that enlarged brains were naturally selected Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, and this sort of confusion. for reasons independent of religious practice, Wakefield (1998) should be commended for (b) that such brain enlargement resulted in the a thoughtful article that did the important Additionally, although Buss et al. (1998) capacity to practice religion, and (c) that reli- sought to outline the usefulness of the terms work of clarifying and elaborating the theo- gious practices function to assuage the fear of adaptation, exaptation, and spandrel for the retical terminology of evolutionary psychol- death (which would itself be required to meet science of psychology, most of their discus- ogy. However, I was disappointed in their sion was restricted to structural rather than the evidentiary standards of a spandrel). Al- treatment of an issue that, in my opinion, psychological levels of analysis. Although though the first two of these conjectures may needs to be more fully addressed before evo- understandable given their strictly biological be true, they can at best be confirmed only at lutionary psychology can gain further episte- interpretation of exaptations, this approach is the pseudoempirical level. Gould (1991) rec- mological ground. problematic because the authors sought to ognized this and suggested that the term ap- Buss et al. (1998) noted the three major apply their standards of evidence to the list of tation be applied to cases where a lack of conceptual means through which evolution- exaptations proposed by Gould(1991), name- historical evidence precludes the determina- ary theory accounts for our current psycholo- ly language, religion, principles of commerce, tion of whether a characteristic is an adapta- gy: (a) adaptation, (b) exaptation, and (c) warfare, reading, writing, and the fine arts. tion or an exaptation. Furthermore, confirm- random noise (surviving mechanisms that All of the items on this list are psychological ing or disconfirming the third conjecture is neither aided nor inhibited gene survival). phenomena borne of a structural complexity far more difficult than establishing the utility The question troubling me is this: Might the (i.e., the human brain) that is not well under- of female orgasm as a sperm transport mecha- possibility of random noise explanations in- stood and that was not sufficiently consid- nism, because the functional level of analysis hibit the potential acceptance of explanations ered by the authors. Here again, Buss et al. is psychological, not structural. based on adaptations or exaptations? may have misinterpreted Gould, who did not All of the proposed exaptations listed According to the logic of scientific in- use human brain size merely as an "example by Gould (1991), because they are specified vestigation, unless one rules out plausible of an exaptation" (p. 539), as the authors at the psychological level, are similarly pre- alternative theoretical explanations for one's stated. Rather, Gould suggested that the hu- cluded from meeting the strict evidentiary findings, then the proposed theoretical ex- man brain, by virtue of both complexity and standards set forth by Buss et al. (1998). Yet, planation for those findings cannot fully be flexibility, is "the best available case for pre- it would be unfortunate indeed if psycholo- accepted (e.g., Cook & Campbell, 1979). dominant exaptation—in other words, for a Given that evolutionary theory provides log- near certainty that exaptations must greatly gists, in an effort to meet such standards, were to reject Gould's distinctions and con- ical room for random noise, a real difficulty exceed adaptations in number and impor- for evolutionary psychologists is how to rule tance" (p. 55). Gould offered the practice of tinue in adaptationist practices. We should recognize the error in logic of inferring evo- out such noise as an alternative explanation religion as an example and suggested that our for psychological mechanisms that are pro- enlarged brains force us to confront our own lutionary cause from current consequence, posed as adaptations. Buss et al. (1998) sug- mortality. Because it is quite unlikely that whether or not we can empirically demon- gested that "as more and more functional brain enlargement evolved to serve this end, strate the existence of psychological exapta- features suggesting special design are docu- the practice of religion performs an exapted tions. 440 June 1999 • American Psychologist mented ... the alternative hypotheses of for any given psychological mechanism that, tive on human mating. Psychological Re- chance and incidental by-product become in- in lieu of direct facts, are as logically sound as view, 100, 204-232. creasingly improbable" (p. 537). adaptationist explanations. Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. Special design, however, seems a vague The logical difficulties of evolutionary K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). standard highly dependent on intuition. Dem- psychological explanations would be of no Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533-548. onstrating special design requires understand- great concern except for this additional trou- Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979J. Quasi- ing exactly how a psychological mechanism bling fact: It seems difficult (at least until a experimentation: Design and analysis is- would have been functional to the survival of time machine is invented) to provide even an sues for field settings. Boston: Houghton the genetic code in the distant reaches of approximate empirical test of whether a par- Mifflin. human history—for it was survival in that ticular psychological mechanism is the result Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New history for which the mechanism was pur- of an adaptation, an exaptation, or random York: Oxford University Press. portedly designed. However, it has been point- noise. Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool ed out by other scientists that the task of One distinction should