DOCSLIB.ORG

Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: the Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: the Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes 10.1177/0146167204271303PERSONALITYHaselton et al. / AND SEX, SOCIAL LIES, AND PSYCHOLOGY INTERFERENCE BULLETIN Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes Martie G. Haselton University of California–Los Angeles David M. Buss University of Texas–Austin Viktor Oubaid DLR–German Aerospace Center, Aviation, and Space Psychology Alois Angleitner Bielefeld University The desires of one sex can lead to deceptive exploitation by the parentally in their children (Symons, 1979; Trivers, other sex. Strategic Interference Theory proposes that certain 1972). Shared genetic fate through shared vehicles, in “negative” emotions evolved or have been co-opted by selection, short, should create powerful selection pressure for in part, to defend against deception and reduce its negative con- cooperation between a man and a woman. sequences. In Study 1 (N = 217) Americans reported emotional Few things are more obvious, however, than the fact distress in response to specific forms of deception. Study 2 (N = that conflict between the sexes is pervasive. An evolu- 200) replicated the results in a German sample. Study 3 (N = tionary perspective provides compelling explanations 479) assessed Americans’ past experiences with deception and about why. To start with, conflict between the sexes must conducted additional hypothesis tests using a procedure to con- be understood within the broader context of conspecific trol for overall sex differences in upset. Each study supported the conflict. Aside from identical twins, the genetic interests hypothesis that emotions track sex-linked forms of strategic inter- of each individual are never identical to the genetic ference. Three clusters of sex differences proved robust across interests of any other individual. As Symons (1979) studies—emotional upset about resource deception, commitment notes, deception, and sexual deception. We discuss implications for theories of mating and emotion and directions for research based The interests of individual human beings conflict with on models of antagonistic coevolution between the sexes. one another, whether “interests” are understood in the ultimate genetic sense or in the proximate sense of motives and goals. The most fundamental, most uni- versal double standard is not male versus female but Keywords: deception; sexual strategies; evolutionary psychology; stra- each individual human versus everyone else....Inan tegic interference; antagonistic coevolution ultimate sense, this double standard results from the fact that, among sexually reproducing organisms, every Cooperation between a man and a woman is virtually a requirement for successful reproduction. From court- Authors’ Note: The authors thank Jennifer Semmelroth for help with Study 1; David Beaulieu, Emily Cowley, Melissa Iseri, Gary Shteynberg, ship through child rearing, selection should favor the Hsuchi Ting, and Holly Ann Wood for help with Study 3; April Bleske, evolution of strategies for the successful coordination of Josh Duntley, Barry Friedman, Shelly Gable, Gian Gonzaga, and Anne a man’s and a woman’s efforts. A mate provides an indis- Peplau for helpful comments on a previous draft of this article; and Mi- pensable genomic complement for producing offspring. chael Mitchell for statistical advice. Correspondence should be ad- Offspring become the shared vehicles for both man and dressed to Martie G. Haselton, University of California, Communica- tion Studies Program, 334 Kinsey Hall, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, woman, their genetic fate inextricably intertwined. CA 90095; e-mail: [email protected]. Women benefited historically in the currency of fitness PSPB, Vol. 31 No. 1, January 2005 3-23 when a man invested parentally in their children, just as DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271303 men benefited historically when a woman invested © 2005 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 3 4 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN conspecific is to a greater or lesser extent one’s repro- strategies, men’s short-term mating “looms larger” in ductive competitor. (pp. 228-229) their strategic repertoire—it typically has greater motiva- tional impetus and attendant design features, such as An important evolutionary premise is that complete mechanisms to evaluate sexual availability, that facilitate alignment of interests among individuals is rarely possi- its success (Buss, 2003; Schmitt, 2003). Dozens of studies ble; conspecific conflict is predicted to pervade group- have verified this sex difference. Men more than women living organisms. desire a larger number of sex partners over various time This general evolutionary expectation for conspecific intervals, are more likely to consent to sex with an attrac- conflict, however, fails to provide a sufficiently precise tive stranger, have twice as many sexual fantasies, are explanation for unique aspects of conflict between the more likely to patronize prostitutes, and relax their stan- sexes that are not shared by other interacting members dards for a partner more in the short-term context (Buss, of a species. Although each individual can be considered 2003). These findings have now been replicated across a reproductive competitor with other conspecifics, it is 10 world regions in a study of 52 nations from around the primarily between members of the same sex that reproductive world (Schmitt, 2003). In sum, men and women have competition is most intense. Men compete primarily with confronted different adaptive problems over the long other men for access to desirable women and for access course of human evolutionary history and as a to the resources and status that women find desirable in consequence have evolved different sexual strategies. men (Buss, 1988, 2003). Similarly, women compete with According to Strategic Interference Theory, conflict other women for access to desirable men. Both sexes occurs when the strategies enacted by one person inter- derogate their same-sex competitors with verbal slurs fere with the desires, goals, or successful enactment of that are surprising only in their subtlety and viciousness strategies by another (Buss, 1989a). To take a single (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Campbell, 2002). If reproductive example, if a man desires a particular woman as a short- competition is most intense within the sexes, why is term mate and deploys seduction strategies accordingly conflict between the sexes so ubiquitous? (e.g., feigning long-term interest), whereas that woman desires the man as a long-term mate, then his strategies Strategic Interference Theory will interfere with the successful attainment of her goal. One answer comes from Strategic Interference The- Strategic interference itself constitutes a profound ory (Buss, 1989a). According to this theory, men and adaptive problem, and so selection should favor the evo- women have recurrently confronted different adaptive lution of solutions that reduce its impact. According to problems. Some of these differences derive from the fact Strategic Interference Theory (Buss, 1989a), the “nega- that fertilization occurs internally within women. tive” emotions of anger and upset have evolved or have Women bear the burdens and pleasures of a 9-month been co-opted by selection, in part, as solutions to the obligatory parental investment to produce a child that problems of strategic interference (also see Mandler, can be produced by a man from a single act of sex. These 1975). When a person’s goals, desires, or strategies are differences have resulted in the evolution of divergent blocked, the arousal of anger and subjective distress are sexual strategies between the sexes (Symons, 1979; proposed to serve four functions: (a) drawing attention Trivers, 1972). Evidence suggests that women, for exam- to interfering events, (b) marking those events for stor- ple, have evolved to desire men with status and age in memory, (c) motivating actions that reduce or resources, whereas men across the globe place less eliminate the source of strategic interference, and (d) emphasis on these qualities (Buss, 1989b; Sadalla, motivating memorial retrieval and hence subsequent Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987). Because status and avoidance of contexts producing future interference resources are especially important to women in securing (Buss, 1989a). This theory suggests that events that inter- long-term paternal investment for their children, fere with an individual’s favored sexual strategy activate women tend to impose longer courtship than men typi- negative emotions. To the degree that men and women cally desire prior to consenting to sex. Women seek men pursue somewhat different sexual strategies, the sources who have access to status and resources, but they also of interference will differ for the sexes (see Buss, 1996, seek men who are willing to commit those resources over 2000, 2003, for more extensive elaborations of Strategic the long run (Buss, 2003). Interference Theory). The large sexual asymmetry in obligatory parental Sex Differences in Emotional Distress investment also has produced one of the largest psycho- Due to Intersexual Deception logical sex differences ever documented—a sex differ- ence in the desire for sexual variety (Oliver & Hyde, Previous research has discovered sex differences in 1993; Schmitt, 2003; Symons, 1979). Although both which acts of deception men and women are likely to sexes have evolved short-term and long-term mating perform in mating contexts. Tooke and Camire (1991), Haselton et al. / SEX, LIES, AND INTERFERENCE 5 TABLE
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]
  • 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.
    [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]