Reconceptualizing Evolutionary Psychology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEW ARTICLE published: 12 August 2014 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00867 From computers to cultivation: reconceptualizing evolutionary psychology Louise Barrett1*, Thomas V. Pollet 2 and Gert Stulp 3 1 Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada 2 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands 3 Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Edited by: Does evolutionary theorizing have a role in psychology? This is a more contentious issue Danielle Sulikowski, Charles Sturt than one might imagine, given that, as evolved creatures, the answer must surely be University, Australia yes. The contested nature of evolutionary psychology lies not in our status as evolved Reviewed by: beings, but in the extent to which evolutionary ideas add value to studies of human Ben Colagiuri, University of New South Wales, Australia behavior, and the rigor with which these ideas are tested. This, in turn, is linked to the Karola Stotz, Macquarie University, framework in which particular evolutionary ideas are situated. While the framing of the Australia current research topic places the brain-as-computer metaphor in opposition to evolutionary *Correspondence: psychology, the most prominent school of thought in this field (born out of cognitive Louise Barrett, Department of psychology, and often known as the Santa Barbara school) is entirely wedded to the Psychology, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive West, computational theory of mind as an explanatory framework. Its unique aspect is to argue Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada that the mind consists of a large number of functionally specialized (i.e., domain-specific) e-mail: [email protected] computational mechanisms, or modules (the massive modularity hypothesis). Far from offering an alternative to, or an improvement on, the current perspective, we argue that evolutionary psychology is a mainstream computational theory, and that its arguments for domain-specificity often rest on shaky premises. We then go on to suggest that the various forms of e-cognition (i.e., embodied, embedded, enactive) represent a true alternative to standard computational approaches, with an emphasis on “cognitive integration” or the “extended mind hypothesis” in particular. We feel this offers the most promise for human psychology because it incorporates the social and historical processes that are crucial to human “mind-making” within an evolutionarily informed framework. In addition to linking to other research areas in psychology, this approach is more likely to form productive links to other disciplines within the social sciences, not least by encouraging a healthy pluralism in approach. Keywords: evolutionary psychology, cognition, cognitive integration, modules, extended mind INTRODUCTION however, because certain proponents of the evolutionary approach As evolved beings, it is reasonable to assume that evolutionary the- insist that the incorporation of the social sciences into the natural ory has something to offer the study of human psychology, and sciences is the only means to achieve a coherent understanding the social sciences more generally. The question is: what exactly? of human life. As Tooby and Cosmides (2005) state, evolution- This question has been debated ever since Darwin (1871) pub- ary psychology “in the broad sense, ... includes the project of lished the Descent of Man, and we appear no closer to resolution reformulating and expanding the social sciences (and medical sci- of this issue almost 150 years later. Some maintain that evolution- ences) in light of the progressive mapping of our species’ evolved ary theory can revolutionize the social sciences, and hence our architecture” (Tooby and Cosmides, 2005, p. 6). understanding of human life, by encompassing both the natural So, what is our answer to this question? The first point to and human sciences within a single unifying framework. Wilson’s make clear is that any answer we might offer hinges necessarily (1975) Sociobiology was one of the first, and most emphatic, claims on the definition of evolutionary psychology that is used. If one to this effect. Meanwhile, others have resisted the idea of unifica- settles on a narrow definition, where evolutionary psychology is tion, viewing it as little more than imperialist over-reaching by equated with the views promoted by the “Santa Barbara School”, natural scientists (e.g., Rose, 2000). headed by Donald Symons, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, David The question posed by this research topic puts a different, Buss, and Steven Pinker (referred to here as Evolutionary Psychol- more specific, spin on this issue, asking whether an evolution- ogy or simply as EP), then the answer is a simple “no” (see also: ary approach within psychology provides a successful alternative Dunbar and Barrett, 2007). If one opts instead to define an evolu- to current information-processing and representational views of tionary approach in the broadest possible terms (i.e., simply as an cognition. The broader issue of unification across the natural evolutionarily informed psychology), then the answer becomes a and social sciences continues to pervade this more narrow debate, cautious and qualified “yes.” www.frontiersin.org August 2014 | Volume 5 | Article 867 | 1 Barrett et al. Computers to cultivation In what follows, we argue that the primary reason why EP fails evolved function is “information processing” and hence that the as a viable alternative to the standard computational approach brain “is a computer that is made of organic (carbon-based) is because, in all the important details, it does not differ from compounds rather than silicon chips” (paragraph 14), whose this approach. We then go on to suggest that the specific evo- circuits have been sculpted by natural selection. More recently, lutionary arguments in favor of EP, which are used to claim its Tooby and Cosmides (2005, p. 16) have stated that “the brain superiority over other approaches, rest on some rather shaky is not just like a computer. It is a computer—that is, a phys- premises, and cannot be used to rule out alternatives in the ical system that was designed to process information.” While way that advocates of EP have supposed. In particular, we deal Pinker (2003, pp. 24–27) argues that: “The computational the- with arguments relating to the reverse engineering of psycho- ory of mind ··· is one of the great ideas of intellectual history, logical adaptations, and the logical necessity of domain-specific for it solves one of the puzzles of the ‘mind-body problem’ ··· processes (specifically, arguments relating to the poverty of the It says that beliefs and desires are information, incarnated as stimulus and combinatorial explosion). We then move onto a configurations of symbols ··· without the computational the- consideration of recent incarnations of the “massive modularity” ory of mind it is impossible to make sense of the evolution of hypothesis showing that, while these are not vulnerable to many mind.” Accordingly, hypotheses within EP are predicated on the of the criticisms made against them, it is not clear whether these assumption that the brain really is a computational device (not can, in fact, be characterized as psychological adaptations to past simply a metaphorical one), and that cognition is, quite liter- environments. We suggest that, taken together, these arguments ally, a form of information processing. In one sense, then, EP weaken the case for EP as the obvious framework for psychology. cannot offer an improvement on the computational theory of Finally, we go onto suggest an alternative view of psychologi- mind because it is premised on exactly this theory. Any improve- cal processes, cognitive integration [or the extended mind (EM) ment on the current state of play must therefore stem from hypothesis], that we feel has the potential to improve on the cur- the way in which evolutionary theory is incorporated into this rent computational approach; one that is relevant to core areas model. of psychological research, will promote integration between psy- chology and other cognate disciplines, but also allow for a healthy THE EVOLVED COMPUTER pluralism both within psychology and across the social sciences The unique spin that EP applies to the computational theory of more generally. mind is that our cognitive architecture is organized into a large number of functionally specialized mechanisms, or “modules,” THE COMPUTATIONAL CORE OF EVOLUTIONARY that each performs a specific task (e.g., Tooby and Cosmides, PSYCHOLOGY 1992; Cosmides and Tooby, 1997; Barrett and Kurzban, 2006). The primary reason why Evolutionary Psychology cannot offer a As these modules are the products of natural selection, they successful alternative to computational-representational theories can be considered as “adaptations”, or organs of special design, of mind is because it is a computational-representational theory of much like the heart or liver. The function of each module is the mind. Evolutionary Psychology (e.g., Cosmides, 1989; Tooby to solve a recurrent problem encountered by our ancestors in and Cosmides, 1992, 2005; Cosmides and Tooby, 1994, 1997) the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), that is, the is the marriage of “standard” computational cognitive psychol- period over which humans were subject to evolutionary pro- ogy (as exemplified by Chomsky’s computational linguistics, e.g., cesses, including those of natural