A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs About Human Nature, Culture, and Science

ESIC 2017

A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

Joseph Carroll, John A. Johnson, Catherine Salmon, Jens Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, Mathias Clasen, and Emelie Jonsson

Abstract How far has the Darwinian revolution come? To what extent have evolutionary ideas penetrated into the social sciences and humanities? Are the “science wars” over? Or do whole blocs of disciplines face off over an unbridgeable epistemic gap? To answerquestions like these, contributors to top journals in 22 disciplines were surveyed on their beliefs about human nature, culture, and science. More than 600 respondents completed the survey. Scoring patterns divided into two main sets of disciplines. Genetic influences were emphasized in the evolutionary social sciences, evolutionary humanities, psychology, empirical study of the arts, philosophy, economics, and political science. Environmental influences were emphasized in most of the humanities disciplines and in anthropology, sociology, education, and women’s or gender studies. Confidence in scientific explanation correlated positively with emphasizing genetic influences on behavior, and negatively with emphasizing environmental influences. Knowing the current actual landscape of belief should help scholars avoid sterile debates and ease the way toward fruitful collaborations with neighboring disciplines. Keywords: human nature, culture, science, science wars, cultural construction, evolutionary social science, social science, humanities, biocultural theory

INTRODUCTION or to anthropologists and sociologists? Are anthropologists and sociologists closer to liter- How much have evolutionary ideas penetrated ary scholars and historians or to psychologists into the various disciplines? To what extent, if and political scientists? Do certain disciplines any, do the social sciences and the humanities in the social sciences and humanities cluster form separate, internally cohesive blocs—blocs together in emphasizing culture’s independence defined by shared ideas about human nature and from biology, or in adopting skeptical attitudes culture, and by shared attitudes toward science? toward the validity of scientific knowledge? Do To what extent do evolutionists in the social other disciplines cluster together in empha- sciences and humanities converge in beliefs and sizing biological constraints on culture, or in attitudes? If the evolutionists stand together, to affirming the validity of scientific knowledge? what extent do they stand apart from scholars To what extent, if any, do beliefs about the and scientists publishing in journals that are not validity of scientific knowledge correlate with a explicitly evolutionary? Do scholars and scien- belief that human behavior is heavily influenced tists in different disciplines vary in the degree by biology? to which they share views with the evolution- Questions such as these characterize major ists? For instance, are psychologists and political controversies in academic intellectual life. Within scientists closer in their views to evolutionists the social sciences, for over a century, the deepest Joseph Carroll et al. conflict has been between contrasting claims for side, and environmental causes, including cul- biological or environmental causes of behav- tural conventions, on the other; (3) statements ior. That conflict blazed up in the sociobiology about the interactions between culture and wars of the 1970s, and has never since subsided evolution over evolutionary time scales—that (Fox 1989; Degler 1991; Tooby and Cosmides is, statements about gene–culture coevolution, 1992; Segerstråle 2000; Alcock 2001; Pinker cultural autonomy, and cultural evolution; and 2002; Kenrick 2011; Horowitz, Yaworsky, and (4) statements about the validity and scope of Kickham 2014). Antagonism between the sci- scientific explanation. Respondents were asked ences and humanities has been smoldering at to indicate the degree to which they agreed or least since the debate between T. H. Huxley and disagreed with these statements. Matthew Arnold in the late Victorian period. The survey was designed to give an up- In the middle of the twentieth century, it flared to-date map of the current academic landscape up in the “two cultures” debate between C. P. of belief. Any such map has intrinsic interest, Snow and F. R. Leavis; and in the 1990s, it and it can also contribute to research. It can flashed into open warfare—“the science wars” enable intellectual historians to orient them- (Huxley [1880] 1898; Arnold [1882] 1974; selves more accurately toward current beliefs Snow [1959] 1993; Leavis [1959] 1972; Gross and attitudes. Knowing what researchers in and Levitt 1994; Aronowitz 1996; Koertge other disciplines actually think can help sci- 1998; Sokal and Bricmont 1998; Brown 2001; entists and scholars formulate hypotheses that Weinberg 2001; Parsons 2003; Boghossian isolate real issues at contention and thus avoid 2006; Smith 2006; Carroll 2011; Smith 2016). sterile controversies generated by unintentional In recent decades, the conflict over scientific straw-manning. Conversely, having data on knowledge has been closely intertwined with the actual beliefs can help forestall evasions or conflict over the causes of human behavior— obfuscations produced by an inconsistent use closely intertwined, but not simply reducible of terms. On the more positive side, finding one to the other. Even without support from that contiguous disciplines are closer in belief hard data, one might be confident that theorists than one supposed could ease the way toward who deprecate biological influences on behav- cross-disciplinary collaboration and synthesis. ior range from social scientists who adopt rig- For many researchers, synthesis, integration, orous empirical methods to philosophers and and comprehensiveness have inherent value historians of science who regard science as a (Wilson 1998; Slingerland and Collard 2012; medium for ideology. Is it nonetheless true that Carroll, McAdams, and Wilson 2016). A chief describing science as socially constructed cor- motive in conducting this survey was to find out relates with minimizing biological influences on how far we have come in achieving a consensus human behavior? And if that correlation does based both on a shared reliance on scientific exist, does it cross the boundary between the knowledge and on shared ideas about the biosocial sciences and the humanities? One might logical underpinnings of human behavior—how guess, and dispute. Instead, we gathered system- far we have come, and how far we still have to go. atic survey data to help answer these questions. To assess basic beliefs and attitudes about biol- METHODS ogy, culture, and science, we developed a survey questionnaire that deployed four main groups of Selecting and Categorizing Disciplines statements: (1) statements about human universals and cultural diversity; (2) statements about Potential respondents were selected by the relative causal force of evolved and genet- balancing two criteria for inclusion: (1) approx- ically transmitted characteristics, on the one imating to the proportions of PhDs awarded

2 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science in the various disciplines of the social sciences where to place these disciplines depended on and humanities; and (2) obtaining fairly equal subject matter, methodology, and classifica- numbers of respondents among evolution- tion of journals in indices of impact factors. ary social scientists, nonevolutionary social Researchers in the empirical studies of the arts scientists, and nonevolutionary humanists. have a humanities subject matter, but their (The much smaller target number of evolu- methods are quantitative, and most of them tionary humanists was determined by the small have appointments in departments of psy- number available. A search for journal articles chology. That group was thus assigned to the by evolutionary humanists produced a list of social sciences. Women’s or gender studies and 79 potential respondents.) A table created by ethnic studies have primarily social subjects, the National Center for Education Statistics not subjects in imaginative culture (the arts, provided information on numbers of PhDs religion, history, philosophy). The top jour- awarded.1 Beginning with information provided nals in ethnic studies, though, are primarily by this table, a list of disciplines was compiled discursive, not quantitative, in orientation, and target numbers of potential respondents and the top journals in women’s or gender assigned to each discipline. studies include much quantitative work, so In addition to evolutionary social scientists ethnic studies was placed in the humanities, and evolutionary humanists, 20 specific disci- and women’s or gender studies in the social plines were identified as relevant to the survey. sciences. In indices of impact factors, the top Humanities disciplines that are not explicitly journals in communication are sometimes designated as evolutionary include drama and grouped with the social sciences and some- theater, ethnic studies, film studies, history, his- times with the humanities. Much of the work, tory and philosophy of science, literary study though, is quantitative, and the field as a whole (Anglophone, European, and comparative), seems to have more affinity, in both method- music, philosophy, religious studies, and the ology and subject matter, with sociology than visual arts. Disciplines in the social sciences with literary study, history, or philosophy. that are not explicitly designated as evolutionary include anthropology, communication/ Selecting Journals and Respondents in media studies/journalism (hereafter “commu- Each Discipline nication”), criminology, economics, education, empirical study of the arts, political science, After setting targets for the number of invi- psychology, sociology, and women’s or gender tations to be issued in each of the 22 disci- studies. plines, potential respondents were selected by Sixteen of the disciplines not designated as identifying contributors to major journals in specifically evolutionary could be unproblem- each discipline. (The evolutionary humanists atically assigned to either the social sciences or were an exception. Since only one short-lived humanities. Four of the disciplines occupy a journal was dedicated to that field, evolution- more borderline area between social sciences ary humanists were identified by scanning and humanities: communication, empiri- bibliographies of humanistic journal articles cal studies of the arts, ethnic studies, and published by evolutionists.) Major journals women’s or gender studies. Decisions about were identified by collating lists in three main online sources: 1 See table 324.10, “Doctor’s degrees conferred by post- secondary institutions, by field of study: Selected years, Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters 1970–71 through 2013–14,” https://nces.ed.gov/pro- ISI Web of Knowledge) (available through a grams/digest/d15/tables/dt15_324.10.asp?current=yes. library license)

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 3 Joseph Carroll et al.

Google Scholar Metrics (https://scholar.google. One thousand evolutionary social scien- com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en) tists were selected from among contributors to eight journals that are explicitly evolution- SCImago Journal Rankings (Scopus database, ary in orientation: Cliodynamics, Evolution and Elsevier B.V., http://www.scimagojr.com/ Human Behavior, Human Nature, Evolutionary journalrank.php) Behavioral Sciences (previously, 2007–2013, the Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural These three sources use somewhat different but Psychology), Evolutionary Psychological Science, overlapping measures for journal impact scores. Evolutionary Anthropology, Evolutionary Psycho SCImago Journal Rankings and Google Scholar logy, Evolution, Mind, and Behavior (volumes Metrics provide information on both the social 1–5 published as the Journal of Cultural and sciences and the humanities. Google Scholar Evolutionary Psychology; volumes 6–12 pub- Metrics divides up some disciplines (history, for lished as the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology). example) into subdisciplines distributed into Only one journal oriented to evolutionary stud- both the social sciences and humanities. Journal ies in the humanities provided potential respon- Citation Reports, though putatively limited to dents, the Evolutionary Review (four issues, the sciences and social sciences, provides ranked 2010–13). Other journals that provided poten- journal listings for ethnic studies, history, history tial respondents in the group of evolutionary and philosophy of science, and women’s studies. humanists included Helios, Interdisciplinary To avoid bias produced by selecting poten- Literary Studies, Mosaic, Ometeca, Philosophy tial respondents too heavily from any one and Literature, Politics & Culture, Studies in the journal, the target number for any given disci- Novel, Style, and Utopian Studies. None of the pline was divided among multiple top-ranked journals for the evolutionary social scientists or journals, with a limit of 10 journals, if (as in the evolutionary humanists was placed on any most cases) 10 journals could be identified of the other disciplinary lists. as top-ranked. To give an example, a target Each of the 4,071 potential respondents was set for 200 invitations from anthropol- was sent an e-mail invitation giving a link to ogy journals. Ten top journals were identified the questionnaire and identifying the jour- by collating lists from the three online data- nal from which his or her name had been bases. Eleven journals appeared in the top drawn. In the questionnaire, each respon- lists for all three databases. The 10 highest dent was asked to click on that journal from ranking from those 11 were selected: Current a drop-down list. By isolating journals within Anthropology, American Journal of Physical each discipline, and identifying the journal Anthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology, to which each respondent had contributed, American Journal of Human Biology, American questionnaire scores could be segregated into Ethnologist, Cultural Anthropology, Journal of specific disciplines. the Royal Anthropological Institute, American We anticipated that some journals that are Anthropologist, Anthropological Quarterly, and not explicitly designated as evolutionary would Anthropological Theory. Twenty letters of invi- contain articles that are evolutionary in orientation were assigned to each of these 10 jour- tation. General interest journals in psychology nals. Contributors to each of the journals were or anthropology, for instance, often publish selected from among the most recent issues. articles by social scientists who also publish in Similar procedures were followed for each of the eight journals designated as explicitly evo- the 20 disciplinary groups other than the evolutionary. One main purpose of the study was lutionary humanists and evolutionary social to assess the degree to which the beliefs of con- scientists. tributors to top journals in any given discipline

4 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science would converge or diverge from the beliefs human behavior; what shapes values, beliefs, of contributors to journals that are explicitly and feelings; what shapes culture; whether committed to an evolutionary analysis of science can explain human behavior), and each human behavior. cluster of three or four statements was followed Two journals in anthropology presented a by an option to comment on the statements question as to whether they should be included (limited to 500 words per comment). in the evolutionary or nonevolutionary group: Controversies about behavioral varia- American Journal of Physical Anthropology tion in human populations include not only and American Journal of Human Biology. hypotheses about interactions between human We reflected that virtually no scientist contrib- universals and cultural conventions but also uting to an anthropology journal would deny, hypotheses about racial and ethnic differences as physical facts, that humans have evolved or (Tooby and Cosmides 1990, 1992; Rushton that humans are biological organisms. We dis- 2000; Sarich and Miele 2004; Gould [1981] tinguished those noncontroversial affirmations 2008; Culotta 2012; Wade 2014). Accordingly, from the presumably more controversial affir- a question was included that asked for agree- mation that biological adaptations influence ment/disagreement on the existence of ethnic/ human behavior. The eight journals that served racial differences in cognition and behavioral as a source for evolutionary social scientists are dispositions. If participants professed any level characterized by an explicit affirmation of that of agreement on the existence of such differ- presumably controversial proposition. Since ences, they received additional questions about neither physical anthropology nor the study the possible genetic and environmental causes of human biology requires an affirmation of of the differences. the controversial proposition that character- izes the set of eight evolutionary journals, the Response Rates American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the American Journal of Human Biology were Given that the letters of invitation identified included in the group of journals that are not the source of the invitation as a journal titled explicitly evolutionary in orientation. A post Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, the hoc comparison of scores among these two authors anticipated a higher rate of response journals, the other anthropology journals, and from evolutionists than from nonevolutionists. the evolutionary journals confirmed the validity Indeed, from 1,000 letters sent to evolution- of the reasoning on which the segregation had ary social scientists, 208 (21%) resulted in a been made. response, while only 199 (11.1%) of the 1,800 nonevolutionary social scientists contacted Measures responded; 29 (41%) of the 71 evolutionary humanists responded, while 179 (14.9%) of the The questionnaire was made available to partic- nonevolutionary humanists responded. ipants via Survey Monkey. It consisted of several demographic questions, including disciplinary Planned Analyses affiliation and the journal from which the partic- ipant was recruited. The rest of the questionnaire Several sets of statistical analyses were planned involved rating agreement/disagreement with a to examine how academics from different dis- number of statements on a series of seven-point ciplines differed in their beliefs about human Likert scales. The statements were clustered by nature, culture, and science. First, descriptive general theme (human universals and cultural statistics were computed to assess the number of diversity; what shapes gender; what shapes valid cases for each survey item and to examine

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 5 Joseph Carroll et al. the frequencies for each response category for produced by an interaction between genetically the survey items. transmitted characteristics and environmental The responses to the survey were then sub- conditions, including cultural conventions.” jected to a principal components analysis to see if Distributions of responses were skewed for the data could be reduced to several general fac- about half of the items, but even items where tors. Subsequently, items that loaded primarily participants leaned toward the high or low end on one of the general factors were combined to showed sufficient endorsement frequencies form reliable scales. Mean scores on these scales across the seven response categories to subject were compared across the 22 disciplines. Effect the responses to principal components analyses. sizes between pairs of disciplines were calculated for 12 disciplines that had relatively large num- Results of Principal Component Analysis bers of respondents and that, in addition to the 2 evolutionary groups, gave a representative sam- An exploratory principal components factor pling from among the nonevolutionary social analysis initially identified six factors with eigen- sciences and the nonevolutionary humanities. values greater than 1. However, the sixth factor Next, disciplines were classified according was defined by only one item, so the analysis to whether they represented one of the social was repeated, specifying a five-factor solution. sciences or one of the humanities and whether Items assessing a common theme tended to load they held an evolutionary or nonevolution- highly on the same factor except for the four ary perspective. Means on the survey factors items dealing with cognitive and behavioral dif- were compared for the four resulting catego- ferences among ethnic/racial groups. Because of ries (evolutionary social sciences, evolutionary the low response rate for three of these items humanities, nonevolutionary social sciences, and unclear loadings from all of them, they were nonevolutionary humanities) with a 2x2 anal- excluded from the final principal components ysis of variance (ANOVA). analysis, which produced a clearly interpretable four-factor solution accounting for 60% of the RESULTS total variance. The first factor, accounting for 31.5% of Descriptive Statistics the total variance, was defined primarily by six items stating that the environment produces The number of respondents, means, and stan- human behavior, values, beliefs, feelings, and dard deviations for each survey item are shown gender identities and that culture operates inde- in table 1. Of the 634 respondents, valid pendently of genetics. We labeled this factor responses were received from 614 to 633 (min./ Environmental Determinism. max.) of the participants to most of the survey The second factor, accounting for 12.6% of items. The three items on causes of cognitive the total variance, was defined by the four items and behavioral differences among ethnic and stating that science can explain nature, human racial groups were answered by only 162 to 164 behavior, imaginative artifacts, and subjec- participants because these items were adminis- tive human experience. We labeled this factor tered only to participants who agreed with a pre- Scientific Explanation. vious item stating that such differences existed. The third factor, accounting for 9% of the Means ranged from a low of 2.33, for total variance, was defined by six items stating “Cultures vary so widely that one cannot iden- that genes produce human nature, behavior, tify any important underlying commonalities of values, beliefs, feelings, gender identities, cul- values, beliefs, and feelings among all cultures,” ture, and the human life cycle. We labeled this to a high of 6.28, for “Human behavior is factor Genetic Determinism.

6 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

TABLE 1 Responses to Survey Items. Variable N Mean Std Dev Humans have a nature, a species-typical set of characteristics that are 633 5.57 1.57 genetically transmitted, that have evolved in an adaptive relationship to the environment, and that form an underlying unity for all diversity in culture and individual behavior. Cultures vary so widely that one cannot identify any important underlying 633 2.33 1.55 commonalities of values, beliefs, and feelings among all cultures. The human life cycle (birth, growth, reproductive maturity, old age, death) is regulated 631 5.36 1.63 by a species-wide set of genetically transmitted adaptations shaped by natural selection. Gender identities in humans are produced predominantly or exclusively by biological 624 3.58 1.83 characteristics, that is, by genetically encoded behavioral dispositions mediated by anatomy, hormones, and physiology. Gender identities in humans are produced predominantly or exclusively by 623 3.21 1.71 environmental conditions, including cultural conventions. Gender identities in humans are produced by an interaction between genes and 629 5.96 1.36 environmental conditions, including cultural conventions. Human behavior is produced predominantly or exclusively by genetically transmitted 624 2.58 1.55 characteristics. Human behavior is produced predominantly or exclusively by environmental 624 3.21 1.74 conditions, including cultural conventions. Human behavior is produced by an interaction between genetically transmitted 629 6.28 1.09 characteristics and environmental conditions, including cultural conventions. Culture is produced by genetically transmitted human behavioral dispositions 625 4.25 2.05 interacting with environmental conditions. Culture is not constrained by genetically transmitted human behavioral dispositions. 622 2.98 1.95 During human evolution, genes and culture have had cumulative causal effects on 620 5.58 1.52 each other, with genetic changes leading to cultural developments, and with cultural developments leading to genetic changes. Culture evolves independently of human biological evolution. 619 2.92 1.89 Human values, beliefs, and feelings are derived exclusively or predominantly from 620 3.41 1.85 cultural conventions. Human values, beliefs, and feelings are derived exclusive or predominantly from 621 2.46 1.37 genetically transmitted characteristics. Human values, beliefs, and feelings are produced by an interaction between adaptations 627 5.89 1.39 shaped by selection and environmental conditions, including cultural conventions. There are significant differences among ethnic and/or racial groups— differences 614 2.95 1.95 that include behavioral dispositions and/or cognitive capacities. Significant cognitive and/or behavioral differences among ethnic and/or racial groups 163 3.82 2.00 are attributable exclusively to environmental conditions, including cultural conventions. Significant cognitive and behavioral differences among ethnic and/or racial groups 164 2.57 1.58 are attributable exclusively to heritable characteristics. (Continued )

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 7 Joseph Carroll et al.

TABLE 1 Responses to Survey Items–Continued Variable N Mean Std Dev Significant cognitive and behavioral differences among ethnic and/or racial groups 162 5.42 1.69 are attributable to an interaction between heritable characteristics and environmental conditions, including cultural conventions. Nature forms a unified structure that can be objectively known by science. 616 4.7 1.97 Human behavior can be objectively explained by science. 618 4.62 1.98 Subjective human experience can be explained scientifically. 618 4.53 1.83 Imaginative artifacts like music, painting, and literature can be objectively understood 618 4.31 2.00 using scientific knowledge.

TABLE 2 Correlations among the Four Factors. Environmental Genetic Gene–Environment Determinism Determinism Interactionism Environmental Determinism Genetic Determinism –.37 Gene–Environment Interactionism –.43 .35 Scientific Explanation –.40 .54 .28 Note: Ns range from 617 to 634. All correlations are significant at the p < .001 level (two-tailed).

The fourth factor, accounting for 6.9% of Explanation all intercorrelated positively, indi- the total variance, was defined by four items cating that persons endorsing one of these dealing with the interactive effects of genes beliefs tend to endorse the others. In contrast, and environments on each other and on Environmental Determinism correlated nega- human behavior, values, beliefs, feelings, and tively with all three for these scales, indicating gender identities. We labeled this factor Gene– that persons who believe in environmental deter- Environment Interactionism. minism tend to reject the other three beliefs. Scales were created by summing the items whose high loadings defined each Comparison of Individual Disciplines factor, and Cronbach alpha reliability esti- mates were calculated. These reliability The next set of results covers comparisons coefficients were as follows: Environmental between individual disciplines on the four Determinism, .79; Genetic Determinism, .79; factor-scale scores. First, some representative Gene–Environment Interactionism, .75; and disciplines illustrate patterns of scores on the Scientific Explanation, .88. four factors. Then, for each of the four factors, Although the varimax orthogonal rotation a graph (figure 1) shows the ranking of all dis- forced the four principal component factors to ciplines, followed by a table comparing scores correlate zero with each other, each of the four between disciplines by listing of all Cohen’s scales was constructed from only a subset of d effect sizes that are .20 or greater. For each the highest-loading items and therefore could of the four factors, there are 12 disciplines in correlate with each other. Table 2 presents the the graph that also appear in the table of effect intercorrelation matrix for the four scales. This sizes. These disciplines are represented by black table shows that Genetic Determinism, Gene– bars in the graph. The other 10 disciplines in Environment Interactionism, and Scientific the graph are represented by light gray bars.

8 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

FIGURE 1 Examples of Environmental Emphasis, Genetic Emphasis, and Intermediates.

Disciplines representing environmental empha (at least .20 but less than .45; for example, the sis, genetic emphasis, and intermediates. Figure 1 difference between evolutionary social science shows factor-scale scores for six disciplines that and psychology) up to the largest observed represent a range of scores on the four factors. effect sizes (1.5 standard deviations or greater). Note the similar “stair-step” pattern between Genetic Determinism effect sizes. Figure 3 Genetic Determinism and Gene–Environment presents a ranking of disciplines on the Genetic Interactionism, with the six disciplines showing Determinism factor from low to high. This nearly identical rankings. Scientific Explanation ranking is largely a reversal of the ranking on shows a less clear but comparable pattern. Environmental Determinism (Spearman’s rho The clear pattern in Genetic Determinism and = –.64) with the two evolutionary groups this Gene–Environment Interactionism is reversed time at the very top. for Environmental Determinism. Table 4 presents a comparison of disciplines Environmental Determinism effect sizes. on Genetic Determinism, listing the Cohen’s Figure 2 presents a ranking of disciplines on d effect sizes greater than .20. The highest the Environmental Determinism factor from scorer, evolutionary humanities, distinguished low to high. (The number of respondents in itself from the crowd, showing effect sizes each discipline is noted parenthetically after greater than 1.50 with five other disciplines and the name of the discipline.) Note that the two effect sizes between 1.00 and 1.50 with four explicitly evolutionary groups rank lowest on disciplines. The evolutionary humanities were this factor. Disciplines from the social sciences even half a standard deviation above the evolu- and humanities can be found along all points tionary social sciences on this factor. of the continuum, with drama, sociology, and Gene–Environment Interactionism effect sizes. visual arts showing the highest scores. Figure 4 ranks disciplines from high to low on Table 3 compares Environmental Deter the Gene-Environment Interactionism factor. minism scores between disciplines. Note This ranking was similar to the ranking for the shading and font code that distinguishes Genetic Determinism (Spearman’s rho = .67); the smallest Cohen’s d effect size considered as was the case with that factor, evolutionary

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 9 Joseph Carroll et al.

FIGURE 2 Environmental Determinism Factor Scores.

TABLE 3 Environmental Determinism Effect Sizes.

10 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

FIGURE 3 Genetic Determinism Factor Scores.

TABLE 4 Genetic Determinism Effect Sizes.

humanities and evolutionary social sciences behavior is a function of gene–environment lead all disciplines, with ethnic studies at the interaction. The lowest-scoring discipline, very bottom. However, in contrast to the first ethnic studies, had a score of 4.53, which is in two factors, which showed a great disparity the range of agreement. across disciplines, all disciplines were on average Table 5 compares the disciplines that differ in agreement with the proposition that human on Gene–Environment Interactionism by a

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 11 Joseph Carroll et al.

FIGURE 4 Gene–Environment Interactionism Factor Scores.

TABLE 5 Gene–Environment Interactionism Effect Sizes.

12 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

FIGURE 5 Scientific Explanation Factor Scores.

TABLE 6 Scientific Explanation Effect Sizes.

Cohen’s d of at least .20. Effect sizes were not the most divergence from other disciplines, with as great for this factor as for the previous two the latter exhibiting somewhat higher d scores factors, confirming greater agreement across because of the larger sample size for this group. many disciplines that gene–environment inter- Scientific Explanation effect sizes. Figure 5 actions are responsible for human behavior. presents the ranking of disciplines on Scientific There were no Cohen’s d scores above 1.10. The Explanation. Unsurprisingly, the social sciences highest-scoring disciplines, evolutionary human- tended to score higher than the humanities, with ities and evolutionary social sciences, showed economics, political science, and evolutionary

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 13 Joseph Carroll et al.

TABLE 7 Factor Scores for Evolutionists, Nonevolutionists, Social Scientists, and Humanists. Evolutionary Nonevolutionary Mean SD N Mean SD N Environmental Humanities 2.10 .83 28 3.50 1.20 178 Determinism Social Sciences 2.40 1.05 208 3.31 1.24 199 Genetic Humanities 5.06 .98 28 3.63 1.07 178 Determinism Social Sciences 4.47 1.15 208 3.66 1.09 199 Gene–Environment Humanities 6.33 .81 28 5.63 1.17 178 Interactionism Social Sciences 6.32 .77 208 5.73 .97 199 Scientific Explanation Humanities 5.05 1.45 27 3.44 1.57 174 Social Sciences 5.54 1.15 204 4.40 1.60 195 social science displaying the highest scores, while (N = 199). Evolutionary Humanities included drama, literary study, and music displayed the one discipline, evolutionary humanities (N = 28). lowest scores. And Nonevolutionary Humanities included 10 Table 6 presents differences in Scientific disciplines: drama, ethnic studies, film studies, Explanation across disciplines, listing all differ- history, history and philosophy of science, liter- ences represented by a Cohen’s d of at least .20. ary study, music, philosophy, religious studies, Although a number of significant differences and visual arts (N = 178). between disciplines can be found, the largest ds Means and standard deviations for the are found with literary study, which scores at least four groups on Environmental Determinism, 1.5 standard deviations lower than six other disci- Genetic Determinism, Gene–Environment plines, including over 2 standard deviations lower Interactionism, and Scientific Explanation are than evolutionary social science. Evolutionary shown in table 7. social science, which scored higher than any other The 2x2 ANOVAs showed the following discipline, also showed very large differences with significant effects. education, history and philosophy of science, his- First, Nonevolutionists scored higher than tory, sociology, and anthropology. Evolutionists on Environmental Determinism, F(1,609) = 79.20, p < .001. Results of 2x2 Analyses of Variance For Genetic Determinism, there was a significant statistical interaction, F(1,610) = 6.20, Disciplines were classified as belonging to p < .05, between the Evolutionary/Nonevolu either the social sciences or humanities and tionary factor and the Social Sciences/Humanities as being either evolutionary or nonevolu- factor. There were significant simple effects for the tionary. The disciplines’ classifications into Evolutionary/Nonevolutionary factor, with evolu- the resulting four categories were as follows. tionary social scientists scoring higher than non- Evolutionary Social Sciences included one dis- evolutionary social scientists, F(1,610) = 54.97, cipline: evolutionary social science (N = 208). p < .001, and evolutionary humanists scoring Nonevolutionary Social Sciences included 10 higher than nonevolutionary humanists, F(1,610) disciplines: anthropology, communication, = 40.80, p < .001, but the mean difference between criminology, economics, education, empirical the evolutionists and nonevolutionists was greater study of the arts, political science, psychol- for the humanists. Another way to look at the sta- ogy, sociology, and women’s/gender studies tistical interaction is that there was no significant

14 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science difference between the nonevolutionary social sci- that such differences exist. A cross-tabulation entists and nonevolutionary humanists, F(1,610) of those groups with the two other groupings = .09, n.s., while the evolutionary humanists (evolutionary/nonevolutionary; social sciences/ scored even higher than the evolutionary social humanities) produced the distribution of par- scientists, F(1,610) = 7.00, p < .01. ticipants shown in table 8. The 2 × 2 ANOVA for Gene–Environment A chi-square (Fisher’s Exact Test) indicated Interactionism showed only a significant main that the overall proportions in table 8 differed effect of the Evolutionary/Nonevolutionary from what would be expected by chance, p < .05. factor, F(1,610) = 34.63, p < .001, with the evo- Looking at the cells individually, the number of lutionists endorsing gene–environment interac- Evolutionary Social Scientists and Evolutionary tionism more strongly than nonevolutionists. Humanists who agreed that racial differences exist There were two main effects on Scientific was exactly what would be expected by chance. Explanation scores. The evolutionists scored This means that membership in these two cate- higher on this scale than nonevolutionists, gories had no impact on agreeing or disagreeing F(1,596) = 68.25, p < .001. And the social with the existence of racial differences. However, scientists scored higher than the humanists, the Nonevolutionary Social Scientists agreed F(1,596) = 19.22, p < .05. that racial differences exist at a greater level than expected by chance, while the Nonevolutionary Views on the Existence of Racial/Ethnic Humanists disagreed that racial differences exist Differences at a greater level than expected by chance. To be clear, all four groups denied racial differences The participants’ responses to the four items more often than they affirmed them. But the assessing their views on racial/ethnic differ- Nonevolutionary Social Scientists affirmed racial ences unexpectedly did not align coherently differences more often than expected while the with their responses to the other items, so Nonevolutionary Humanists denied them more responses to these items were examined sepa- often than expected by chance. rately. More participants (N = 614) responded Although there were only 162–164 valid cases to the item on the existence of racial/ethnic for the three items on causes of ethnic/racial dif- differences than to the other three items (Ns = ferences, tentative analyses were undertaken to 162–164), so this item was analyzed first. We see if data from those items might be used. The split the sample at the scale midpoint, 4, form- item attributing ethnic/racial differences to the ing two groups: those who disagreed that racial/ environment correlated zero with the item attrib- ethnic differences exist and those who agreed uting these differences to heritable factors and

TABLE 8 Scores on Racial and/or Ethnic Differences. Racial and/or ethnic differences do exist do not exist Totals observed expected observed expected Evolutionary Social Sciences 58 57.5 97 97.5 155 Evolutionary Humanities 8 8.5 15 14.5 23 Nonevolutionary Social Science 52 44.7 116 123.3 168 Nonevolutionary Humanities 34 41.3 121 113.7 155 Totals 152 349 501

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 15 Joseph Carroll et al. r = -.39 with the item attributing these differ- Interactionism, the variation among disciplines ences to gene–environment interactions. The is much smaller than on the other two causal heritability item and gene–environment interac- factors but the distribution of disciplines is sim- tion item correlated r = .24. Combining the items ilar. into a scale with the environmental item reversed The two evolutionary groups occupy the produced a scale with a Cronbach alpha of only lowest-scoring positions on Environmental .45, well below the accepted minimum of .70. A Determinism and the highest-scoring posi- 2x2 ANOVA on the scale showed no significant tions on Genetic Determinism and Gene– effects of academic affiliation on perceived cause Environment Interactionism; they are both in of racial and/or ethnic differences. Separate 2x2 the top half of the distribution on Scientific ANOVAs on the individual items also showed Explanation. Psychology and empirical study of no significant effects. In short, no meaningful the arts score in the bottom half of the distri- conclusions could be drawn about academics’ bution on Environmental Determinism and in views of the causes of racial and/or ethnic the top half on Genetic Determinism, Gene– differences. Environment Interactionism, and Scientific Explanation. In that respect, they remain in The Four Factors: Cross-Disciplinary Clustering close association with the two evolutionary disciplines and also with philosophy and political Do the nonevolutionary social sciences science. and the nonevolutionary humanities form Economics and political science form a small separate, internally cohesive blocs that can be subgroup to themselves. They are adjacent in defined by shared ideas about human nature scoring sequence on all four factors: moder- and culture, and by shared attitudes toward ately low on Environmental Determinism and science? On the three factors that isolate quite high on both Genetic Determinism and causal beliefs—Environmental Determinism, Scientific Explanation; on Gene–Environment Genetic Determinism, and Gene–Environment Interactionism, they split the middle (positions Interactionism—they most definitely do not, 11 and 12 in the sequence of 22). but the humanities come much closer to form- In contrast to scores on the three causal ing a cohesive group than the social sciences factors, on Scientific Explanation there is a do. One main segment of the social sciences— greater pull toward polarization between the anthropology, sociology, education, and wom- social sciences and humanities, with the social en’s or gender studies—clusters with the core sciences tending toward scientific affirmation humanities disciplines: literary study, history, and the humanities toward skepticism. But even history and philosophy of science, ethnic stud- on this factor, one humanities discipline (philos- ies, and visual arts. Another main segment of the ophy) scores in the top half of the distribution, social sciences—psychology, empirical study of and two social science disciplines (anthropology the arts, economics, and political science—has and women’s or gender studies) score in the scores closer to those of the evolutionists than bottom half. Anthropology scores lower than the to those of the group constituted by most of history and philosophy of science, and women’s the humanities and by social sciences such as or gender studies scores lower than both anthro- anthropology and sociology. Communication pology and history. Sociology, though in the top and criminology do not contribute much half of the distribution, scores lower than eight to polarization between the nonevolution- other disciplines, including both the evolutionary social sciences and humanities. They have ary humanities and philosophy. small Ns and also display mid-range scores. If we separate the 22 disciplines into just On the third causal factor, Gene–Environment 4 components—evolutionary, nonevolutionary,

16 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science social science, and humanities—the 2´2 distinct pair, but not a pair radically disjunc- ANOVAs reveal that on the three causal factors tive from the nonevolutionary disciplines. the only statistically significant difference is that On Environmental Determinism, the dis- between evolutionists and nonevolutionists. On tance (.3) between the mean of the evolu- the fourth factor, Scientific Explanation, the tionary humanities (2.1) and the mean of the evolutionists score significantly higher than the evolutionary social sciences (2.4) is greater nonevolutionists, and the social scientists also than the distance between the mean of the score higher than the humanists. However, the evolutionary social sciences and that of film broad patterns revealed in the 2´2 ANOVAs studies (2.54), philosophy (2.6), and psy- contain substantial variation both within each chology (2.66). On Genetic Determinism, of the two nonevolutionary groups and between the distance (.59) between the mean of the the two evolutionary groups. The largest varia- evolutionary humanities (5.06) and the evolution appears in the nonevolutionary social sci- tionary social sciences (4.47) is greater than the ences. On all four factors, the graphs displaying distance between the means of the evolutionary scores for individual disciplines do not form social sciences and economics, political science, sharply demarcated blocs but rather fairly con- film studies, psychology, religious studies, phi- tinuous slopes from high to low on each factor. losophy, empirical studies of the arts, commu- In all four of those slopes, some social science nication, and visual arts. On this factor, the disciplines rank near the top, and others near evolutionary humanities could be said to form the bottom. a group of one, standing apart from the next The evolutionists score in the terminal 10 disciplines in the sequence. Even so, the positions of the sequence on all three causal distance (.59) between the mean of the evolu- factors, but the differences between the evolutionary humanities and that of the evolutionary tionists and the highest-scoring nonevolution- social sciences is dwarfed by the distance (1.43) ary disciplines are smaller than the differences between the mean of the evolutionary social sci- among the highest-scoring nonevolutionary ences (4.47) and that of anthropology (3.04). disciplines and the lowest-scoring nonevolu- On Gene–Environment Interactionism, tionary disciplines. For example, the differ- the means for the two evolutionary groups are ences between scores for the evolutionary social only .01 apart, but the distance between that sciences and for psychology are consistently mean and the next three disciplines (commu- smaller than the differences between scores for nication, psychology, and film studies) is less psychology and for anthropology, sociology, than a tenth of a point. When the evolution- education, and women’s or gender studies. On ists are set off against all the nonevolutionary Environmental Determinism, for example, disciplines, in an ANOVA, they score signifi- the Cohen’s d (effect size) for the difference cantly higher. If the 5 highest-scoring disci- in scores between the evolutionary social sci- plines were grouped together, however, and ences and psychology is .26, a small difference. set off against the remaining 17, that group In contrast, the Cohen’s d for psychology and of 5 would score significantly higher than the sociology is 1.22, for psychology and literary group of 17. The point here is that on the three study 1.00, for psychology and anthropology causal factors, there is in fact no sharp break .96, and for psychology and women’s or gender between the two evolutionary disciplines and studies .75—all large effect sizes. other disciplines. A more important difference The two evolutionary groups are adjacent is the very sharp contrast between the high and at far ends of the scales on Environmental low ends of the scales on Environmental and Determinism, Genetic Determinism, and Gene– Genetic Determinism; on Gene–Environment Environment Interactionism. They thus form a Interactionism, the contrasts are much less

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 17 Joseph Carroll et al. sharp but still distinct—distinct enough so that the distance between the means of anthropol- the two evolutionary disciplines alone, despite ogy and evolutionary social science (distance = their close proximity to other disciplines, score 1.78). The effect size for the difference between significantly higher than all nonevolutionary anthropology and literary study is .59, a little disciplines clustered together. more than half a standard deviation. In con- On the ANOVA for Scientific Explanation, trast, the effect size for the difference between there was a significant main effect for the anthropology and the evolutionary social Evolutionary-Nonevolutionary factor. This sciences (Cohen’s d = 1.41) is nearly one and a means that the two evolutionary disciplines half standard deviations. together score on average significantly higher Do scholars and scientists who affirm that than the weighted average of all the nonevolu- human behavior is heavily influenced by biology tionary disciplines combined. However, there also tend to affirm the validity of scientific expla- was also a significant main effect for the Social nation? Yes, they do. The ANOVA results tell us Sciences-Humanities factor. The evolutionary that much by isolating the two evolutionary dis- humanities actually score lower on Scientific ciplines and noting that they score significantly Explanation than political science, economics, higher than the other 20 disciplines taken as a and the empirical studies of the arts. The evolu- group. But evolutionary ideas have penetrated tionists score significantly higher than all non- into other disciplines also—disciplines such as evolutionary disciplines combined because the psychology, philosophy, and political science. evolutionary social sciences score highest and Comparing factor scores among all the respon- because disciplines at the low end of the scale dents, Scientific Explanation correlates nega- score very low. The Cohen’s d for the evolution- tively with Environmental Determinism (r = -.40, ary social sciences and literary study (2.27) is p < .001), positively with Genetic Determinism the largest in the study, and it is accompanied (r =.54, p < .001), and positively also with Gene– by other large effect sizes for the evolutionary Environment Interactionism (r = .28, p < .001). social sciences and history (1.47), history and To sum up, the two evolutionary disciplines philosophy of science (1.45), anthropology pair up fairly closely on all four factors, but (1.41), education (1.18), and sociology (1.08). on three factors—Environmental Deter On Scientific Explanation, the distance minism, Genetic Determinism, and Scientific between the mean of the evolutionary social Explanation—the differences in mean score sciences (5.54) and that of the next highest between the two are greater than the differences scorer (political science, 5.27) is not very great. between one of the two evolutionary disciplines Accordingly, the Cohen’s d for political science and one or more of the nonevolutionary dis- and literary study (1.93) is the second largest ciplines. Polarization in beliefs and attitudes effect size in the survey. Literary study scores so is a reality, but it is neither a complete polar- low on this factor that it has large Cohen’s d effect ization between the evolutionary and nonev- sizes with disciplines that it clusters with on the olutionary disciplines nor between the social Environmental and Genetic Determinism fac- sciences and humanities. It is a polarization, tors, such as sociology (Cohen’s d 1.04) and edu- on the causal factors, between Environmental cation (Cohen’s d .93). But literary study is not and Genetic Determinism; and on Scientific isolated and anomalous. It scores higher (mean Explanation, between science affirmers and = 2.92) than drama (mean = 2.58) and only a science skeptics. Humanities and social sci- little lower than music (mean = 2.96) and ethnic ence disciplines are strung out all along the studies (mean = 3.09). The distance between the slopes between the terminal points on these mean of literary study (2.92) and the mean of two scales. ANOVA results inform us that in anthropology (3.76) is .84. That is less than half the nonevolutionary humanities, the center

18 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science of gravity is located toward the bottom of score in the top half on Gene–Environment the scale for Genetic Determinism and also Interactionism). Another eight disciplines for Scientific Explanation. In the nonevolu- score in the bottom half of the distribution on tionary social sciences, the center of gravity Environmental Determinism and the top half is located somewhat closer to the top of the on Genetic Determinism. (Seven of those eight scale for Scientific Explanation. On the three also score in the top half on Gene–Environment causal factors, the nonevolutionary social sci- Interactionism). The remaining six disciplines ences are distributed along the whole scale— (ethnic studies, music, religious studies, visual with representatives at both ends and in the arts, criminology, and communication) can middle. be distributed between the two groups on the basis of scoring in the environmental or genetic Two Polarized Groups: Genetic Emphasis and categories on two out of three factors (with Environmental Emphasis scoring in the top half of Gene–Environment Interactionism counting in the genetic cat- To isolate main tendencies in the scoring pat- egory). Disciplines in the environmental- tern, the 22 disciplines can be divided into emphasis group include anthropology, drama, two groups, one group emphasizing environ- education, ethnic studies, history, history and mental causes, and the other genetic causes philosophy of science, literary study, music, reli- (see figure 6). gious studies, sociology, visual arts, and women’s This division was achieved by apportioning or gender studies (N = 264). Disciplines in the scores on the three causal factors into top and genetic-emphasis group include criminology, bottom halves. Eight disciplines score in the communication, economics, empirical study top half of the distribution on Environmental of arts, evolutionary humanities, evolutionary Determinism and in the bottom half on social sciences, film studies, philosophy, polit- Genetic Determinism. (Six of the eight also ical science, and psychology (N = 351).

FIGURE 6 Factor Scores for Disciplines Emphasizing Genes or Environment.

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 19 Joseph Carroll et al.

The polarization of causal scores correlates of behavior that are reproduced across cul- with the polarization of scores on Scientific tural contexts—without that necessarily being Explanation. Ten of the twelve disciplines in genetically transmitted or programmed. It’s the environmental-emphasis group score in the rather classically sociological, I suppose, to bottom half of the distribution on Scientific think that the problem of social life creates Explanation. Nine out of ten of the disciplines in some universal human characteristics, that are the genetic-emphasis group score in the top half derived more from the institutional structures of the distribution on Scientific Explanation. we are born into than the genetic material we are born with. (sociology) DISCUSSION “Gender identity” is itself a cultural term and Genes, Environments, and Culture: What People concept, whose content has changed in recent Believe years. (history) Three central themes are embedded in the Not being what is called an “essentialist,” survey: (1) beliefs about the relationship I’m inclined to say that human beings have between genes and environments, (2) beliefs a history rather than a “nature,” and that what about the specific character of culture as a fea- counts as being human is contingent upon ture of the environment, and (3) beliefs about many variable conditions, so that the “man– scientific explanation. We shall first examine animal” relationship is open and subject to beliefs about relationships among genes, envi- local social, cultural, and historical qualifica- ronments, and culture, then the correlation tion. (literary study) between causal beliefs and beliefs about the validity and scope of scientific explanation. Such comments need to be taken into account Statements on beliefs about culture are cru- when registering what respondents mean in cially important because scholars and scientists producing scores that are incorporated in the who emphasize “environment” are in most cases factor Environmental Determinism. thinking much less of the physical environment Designating either group in figure 6 as than of the social and cultural environment. “determinist”—environmental or genetic—would “Environment” is the more encompassing term, evidently be a mistake. On Environmental but “culture” or “society” is the term that most Determinism, the group emphasizing envi- scholars emphasize when designating causes of ronmental causes scores below 4.0—the score behavior, gender identity, values, beliefs, and stipulating “neither agree nor disagree.” On feelings. That kind of emphasis is evident in Genetic Determinism, the group emphasiz- many of the comments offered by respondents, ing genetic causes scores between the neutral for example: 4.0 position and 5.0, which is the lowest level of affirmative agreement. On Gene–Environment In my view, “environmental conditions” don’t Interactionism, the genetic-emphasis group scores simply include “cultural conventions”; they’re higher than the environmental-emphasis group, inevitably shaped by and understood through the thus moderating their emphasis on genetic causes. lens of cultural conventions and have virtually no Both groups score well into the affirmative range existence apart from these. (literary study) on Gene–Environment Interactionism. Do the two groups then basically agree on I have a hard time responding to these ques- the range of causal factors, differing only in their tions because I believe that humans can have emphasis on one or the other of the causal fac- a “nature”—in the sense of certain patterns tors? Many of the written comments do suggest

20 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science a difference of emphasis, but sometimes the Clearly there is some sort of interaction. difference in degree amounts to a qualitative Which predominates? I tend to give the nod to difference; strong causal primacy is accorded either environmental factors. (history) to genes or environments, especially cultural environments. Here below is a sampling of statements Interaction—but “genes” are more important. on genetic and environmental primacy. (political science)

I think that human behavior is determined, not I agree that biological characteristics play a role exclusively, but predominantly by environmental in gender-identity formation, but I suppose conditions, including cultural conventions. (his- I absolutely disagree that they do so “predomi- tory and philosophy of science) nantly.” (literary studies)

I believe gender identity reflects a mixture of While the third statement, human behavior genetic and cultural inputs, with the genetic being produced by an interaction, appears being somewhat more important. (evolution- more compelling to me, the role of genetically ary social sciences) transmitted characteristics are likely to be more decisive. (political science) Even if there may be cases in which genetics has influence on gender identity, I think that Differences of emphasis allow for alternative this case is the exception. (history and philos- hypotheses to be tested empirically. But confir- ophy of science) mation or falsification of competing hypotheses requires that the formulators of the hypotheses All characteristics are produced by interactions agree on the meaning of terms. What precisely is between genes and “environmental” condi- “culture”; what is its origin? And how indepen- tions if we define “environmental” broadly to dent is it as a causal agent? The comments suggest include other genes (i.e., the environment of conflicting answers to these questions. Comments one gene is other genes). But, it’s highly doubt- from disciplines giving emphasis to genetic causes ful that cultural conventions influence gender identify culture as essentially constrained and identity too strongly. If cultural conventions channeled by genes. Comments from disciplines influenced gender identities, and were gender giving emphasis to environmental causes suggest identity merely an arbitrary social construc- that culture operates in largely autonomous ways, tion, humans wouldn’t be here anymore. The overwhelming biological constraints. In one form, genes hold culture on a leash to some degree. this belief implies a kind of dualism in which cer- (evolutionary social sciences) tain aspects of life are controlled by biology, while other aspects are purely cultural. A version of this The extent to which a gender identity is outward- culturalist dualism posits a sharp break between ly expressed is mediated by one’s environmental biology and culture: biology is a physical fact but acceptance of fluctuating gender identities, but has no influence on identity, values, or beliefs. the underlying gender self-identity is almost Here below is a sampling of statements reflecting exclusively biologically based. (Thus, my view these different ideas about what culture is and how of an interaction.) (evolutionary social sciences) it operates as a causal force.

Culture originates in biology and is The interaction is the only possible real answer, channeled by it but statistically it is clear that biological characteristics are the more important factor in Biological and social experiences do shape it. (evolutionary social sciences) parts of the life cycle (like speed of growth,

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 21 Joseph Carroll et al.

timing of reproductive maturity), but the cycle diverse and complex, making it all but impos- itself exists through natural selection, and sible to discern how much of our behaviour is many of the experience-moderators are them- “natural.” (history and philosophy of science) selves adaptations. (political science) The problem I see in these questions is that Surely the predominance of pentatonic music they take as an epistemological starting point in various cultures (e.g.) has quite a lot to do an ontological divide between nature and cul- with the way that the human brain processes ture. Yet I believe that this divide itself is a sound, which is a result of various evolutionary cultural product. (anthropology) forces pre-dating culture. (philosophy) Some aspects of culture are constrained by biology, and some are not Clearly things like reproductive maturity, taboos, growth rates, religions, etc. are all a prod- Important aspects of human “nature” are uct of our evolved genetic abilities and fairly free genetically transmitted, but given that an to vary as a function of the cultural institutions essential part of our human nature is to par- and norms that develop in path-dependent ways ticipate in symbolic culture, that is a matter of and in response to different ecological settings. shared agreements—which are not genetically Part of human nature is to be a cultural species. determined. (anthropology) (evolutionary social science) Values I take to be cultural. Beliefs? Well, what Many genetically transmitted traits are likely do you have in mind? My belief that some- shaped by cultural conventions (that is, culture thing is colored certainly has a genetic/biologi- can exert selection pressures on genes), and as cal component; I “come equipped” to perceive recent work in epigenetics is starting to show, some colors and sounds, for example. But the same genes often express themselves differ- my beliefs about kinship systems? Don’t see a ently depending on different environmental genetic component creating those beliefs. Not triggers. And conversely, cultural conventions sure what is meant by “feelings.” Perhaps there don’t come out of thin air; our capacities to is a natural aversion to certain things, e.g., spi- be attuned to culture are rooted in genetically ders. But feeling patriotic? Again, I see a larger evolved cultural learning. (psychology) cultural component to most of these matters, but my weight would shift depending on topic Culture is autonomous or primary under discussion. (history) I would prefer to say that “genes and culture Meaning is cultural and is independent have had cumulative causal effects on each of biological fact other, with genetic changes leading to cultural developments, and with cultural developments The human species-typical set of characteris- leading to genetic changes” in pre-historic times, tics is a set of biological characteristics, which until the emergence of Homo sapiens; and that do not determine cultural characteristics. “culture has evolved independently of human All the stages of the human life cycle (even biological evolution” ever since. (anthropology) birth and death), although with a biological substratum, are endowed with different mean- While there is a biological human nature, ings in different cultures. (history and philos- shaped by evolution, one of its components is ophy of science) high intelligence (with a few, prominent, excep- tions), allowing for a high degree of behavioural Human capacities to acquire patterns of flexibility. Hence, human cultures are extremely thought and behavior are inherited, but this

22 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

does not mean that there is an “underlying are dispersed in the factor analysis; they are unity” other than this innate plasticity. Even associated with three separate factors. Two aspects of the life cycle, though regulated by statements are included in the Environmental inherited traits, is flexible. More importantly, Determinism factor: “Culture is not constrained “life” and “cycle” are themselves subjectively by genetically transmitted human behavioral apprehended, and so even if people’s biologi- dispositions”; and “Culture evolves inde- cal life went through a fixed series of stages or pendently of human biological evolution.” One processes, its formation as a “life” depends on statement is included in Genetic Determinism: how that individual’s mind sees itself and has “Culture is produced by genetically transmitted learned to see itself. (anthropology) human behavioral dispositions interacting with environmental conditions.” The remaining Maybe it is true that hormones strongly govern statement is included in Gene–Environment whether someone feels to be a man or woman. Interactionism: “During human evolution, But then again, what it means to be a man, i.e., genes and culture have had cumulative causal the gender identity, is a purely cultural ques- effects on each other, with genetic changes lead- tion. (sociology) ing to cultural developments, and with cultural developments leading to genetic changes.” Human (Darwinian) evolution/origin of species The idea that culture operates independently remains a theory, embedded in categories then of biology appears to influence the score on one words of human invention. No historian, of any of the cultural statements in the questionnaire: segment of humanity, could ever agree that any “Culture is produced by genetically transmitted such universal is absolutely true. (history) human behavioral dispositions interacting with environmental conditions” (see figure 7; in the The tendency to regard culture as an autonomous graph, the phrasing in all four cultural ques- or semiautonomous force can be contrasted with tions has been condensed for reasons of space). an extreme biologism that denies the existence The group emphasizing environmental of culture altogether. The comments (number- causes scores 3.51 in response to that first cul- ing about 500 total) contained one such state- tural statement in figure 7—below the point ment: “I don’t know what culture is. I see animal (4.0) of neither agreeing nor disagreeing. behavior as an effect of genes interacting with In other words, the group on average disagrees environments. I see human behavior the same with the statement that culture is produced by way. I don’t find it necessary to invoke ‘culture’ the interaction of genes and environmental in either case” (evolutionary social science). The conditions. From a biological perspective, one opposite extreme appears in comments already might ask: If culture is not produced by an quoted—statements such as “environmental interaction of genes and environmental condi- conditions” have “virtually no existence” outside tions, from what could it possibly be produced? of “‘cultural conventions,’” and that “the prob- What feature of any aspect of the biological lem of social life creates some universal human world is not ultimately a product of the inter- characteristics, that are derived more from the action of genes and environments? The answer institutional structures we are born into than the “nothing” is implied in three comments: genetic material we are born with.” I don’t even know what the final statement Four Statements about Culture [culture evolves independently of biology] could mean. “Culture” is biological; non-living The survey questionnaire contains four state- things don’t have culture. (evolutionary social ments about culture. These four statements sciences)

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 23 Joseph Carroll et al.

FIGURE 7 Scores on Culture Questions for Disciplines Emphasizing Genes or Environment.

Cultural dynamics can be independent for on the other three cultural questions. Both a very long time but will then at some point groups score in the affirmative range on the tie up with biological evolution. (evolutionary statement that culture and genes have coevolved. social sciences) On the statement that culture is not constrained by genes, neither group scores in the affirmative Over more recent, and shorter time intervals range; that is, neither group denies that culture culture can evolve somewhat independently of is constrained by genes. On the statement that biology, but over the span of human evolution, culture evolves independently of biology, again, the past 7 million years, clearly culture has neither group scores in the affirmative range. not been independent of biological evolution. All three points of agreement have to be (evolutionary social sciences) qualified. As one of the comments quoted above indicates, researchers can acknowledge Both the environmental-emphasis and genet- that genes and culture coevolved in prehistoric ic-emphasis groups score in the affirmative range times but nonetheless maintain that for modern on the factor Gene–Environment Interactionism, Homo sapiens culture has become detached but on the first culture question—the question from biology. The idea that genes constrain about the source of culture itself—the environ- culture seems hard to reconcile with the idea mental-emphasis group is particularly reluctant that culture is not produced by interactions to acknowledge that this interaction produces between genes and environmental conditions. culture. The implication is that culture is tran- Likewise, the idea that culture does not evolve scendent and autonomous; it is not a product of independently of biology seems hard to recon- biological processes. cile with the idea that culture is not produced For those who look for hopeful signs of by interactions between genes and environ- potential consensus about the relations between mental conditions. (Consider the propositions nature and nurture, biology and culture, some with a change of sign from negative to posi- reassurance can perhaps be derived by the scores tive: “Culture is produced by an interaction

24 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science between genes and environmental conditions, Haidt, and Nosek 2009; Hirsh et al. 2010; but culture evolves independently of biology.”) Dodd et al. 2012; Haidt 2012; Oakley 2014; And finally, there are substantial differences of Ståhl, Zaal, and Skitka 2016). Much of the degree in the scores of these two groups on all research exploring correlations between per- four statements about culture. sonality and belief systems focuses on political and ideological beliefs. Those issues seem Scientific Explanation and Beliefs about particularly relevant to diverging beliefs about Biology and Culture environmental and genetic causes of human behavior. Accusations of “biological determin- The two polarized groups—genetic-emphasis ism” have typically been accompanied by claims and environmental-emphasis—contrast sharply that belief in genetic causes undermines the on the Scientific Explanation Factor score. hope of altering human behavior in ways con- The group emphasizing environmental causes cordant with liberal or progressive social ideals. scores 3.54, below the affirmative range. The Or more aggressively, that belief in genetic group emphasizing genetic causes scores 5.28, causes provides a biologically grounded sanc- inside the affirmative range. That contrast cor- tion for violence and for existing distributions of responds to the negative correlation between social power (Sociobiology Study Group 1976; Scientific Explanation and Environmental Lewontin 1980; Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin Determinism (r = -.40, p < .001) and to the pos- 1984; Degler 1991; Buss and Malamuth 1996; itive correlation between Scientific Explanation Segerstråle 2000; Pinker 2002; Vandermassen and Genetic Determinism (r = .54, p < .001). 2005; Tybur, Miller, and Gangestad 2007; How are we to interpret the correlation Duarte et al. 2015). A model of personality that between believing in genetic influences and incorporates a conception of “honesty” (the “H believing in scientific explanation? One pos- Factor”) might help integrate hypotheses about sible interpretation is that scientific evidence underlying qualities of intellectual character gives strong grounds for a rational belief in the with hypotheses of direct causal relationships biological underpinnings of human behavior between belief in science and belief in genetic and human experience. Conversely, an unwill- influences (Chirumbolo and Leone 2010; ingness to acknowledge the biological under- Lee and Ashton 2012; Rindermann, Flores- pinnings of human behavior could motivate Mendoza, and Woodley 2012; de Vries et al. skepticism about science in general. These 2016). complementary hypotheses both posit a causal Among candidates for more general belief relation between belief in genetic causes and systems that could influence the correlation belief in science. It is, of course, also possible between Scientific Explanation and the causal that some trait of intellectual character, or some factors, one belief system emerges most promi- more general belief system, underlies and causes nently: the ontological and epistemological dual- both a belief or disbelief in genetic influences ism suggested by many of the comments written and a belief or disbelief in scientific evidence. into the questionnaire and also by disagreement Traits of intellectual character that might with the proposition that culture is produced by influence both beliefs about science and beliefs interactions among genes and environmental about genetic and environmental/cultural conditions. Here below is a sampling of com- influences include personality factors like those ments suggesting how a dualistic world view explored by psychologists who investigate the manifests itself in attitudes toward science. relations between temperament and beliefs (Eysenck and Wilson 1978; Paulhus and John Human behavior is not subject to immutable 1998; Paulhus and Trapnell 2008; Graham, laws, and, therefore, can’t be studied scientifically.

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 25 Joseph Carroll et al.

The “social sciences” in my view, relate closer to “key characteristics” of a given cultural form philosophy than to the hard sciences, although (and what is that anyway—do you mean cul- some biological and psychological factors can tural group, organisational culture, what is be studied scientifically. Some subjective human “culture”??). Human societies are constantly experience could possibly be explained scientifi- shifting and changing, and figuring out how cally. (religious studies) those changes happen and why they take the direction they do is a pretty fruitless enter- I certainly think that many aspects of nature prise. Surely biology and cultural norms are and some aspects of human behavior, experi- interrelated, but I don’t think any of your ence, and the creative arts can be explained by statements above can adequately capture science. But I see scientific explanations as typ- what that relationship might be, and it’s really ically limited both by a failure to admit their problematic to try to attribute some sort of own subjective biases, their own partiality, and originating force to one or the other. (wom- by their emphasis on quantitative data to the en’s or gender studies) exclusion of messy, unstable aspects irreducible From a dualist perspective, it might be pos- to numbers. (literary studies) sible for the physical world to be known by science, reduced to quantitative terms, but Scientific knowledge has something to tell us the human world is qualitative, irreducible, about material artifacts and their production, knowable only phenomenally, subjectively, but “human nature,” “human experience,” and in ways that cannot be either falsified or “human behavior” are not empirically stable. confirmed by scientific criteria of epistemic (literary studies) validity. Most of the comments affirming a belief in It would be important here to distinguish science were similar to one another—making a between “natural sciences” and “human sci- distinction between what is now known (lim- ences.” My agreement with these statements ited) and what hypothetically can be known depends on the understanding that “human (much less limited). nature” (behavior, subjective experience, art, etc.) cannot be explained by hard, natural sci- I think none of these things is likely to ever be ences, but only by interpretive, symbolic, his- completely known, but it’s just due to limita- torical sciences. (anthropology) tions in our imagination and time, and not due to in-principle barriers to any of these things Perhaps good to mention that I am a Christian: (except possibly for results related to incom- I have my doubts about the truth of macro pleteness theorems, uncertainty principles, and evolutionism, and strongly oppose all kinds of the like). (philosophy) determinism, perhaps with divine predestina- tion as the only exception. I believe humans I had trouble answering these because I didn’t are composed of a soul and a body, ergo the know if you mean can be explained with impossibility of scientific understanding of the current theories or if you meant can be humans in all their facets. I notice these con- explained in principle (that is, will eventually victions, for which I believe to have good argu- be explained by scientific theories). (evolution- ments, playing a role in answering this survey. ary social sciences) (religious studies) In theory I agree with all of these statements. “Culture” isn’t a thing—you can’t trace ori- In practice, I’m not sure it could ever happen. gins or really ever hope to accurately describe (evolutionary social sciences)

26 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

Subjective experience—not yet for sure, but divergences of causal belief can be reduced to maybe in the future. (evolutionary social this: To what extent do genes constrain human sciences) behavior, identity, values, beliefs, and feelings? Or conversely, to what extent are environmental We’re a long way from it, but I believe it’s influences, and especially culture, free to shape possible! (evolutionary social sciences) human behavior, identity, values, beliefs, and feelings independently of genetically transmit- CONCLUSION ted dispositions and capacities? Knowledge on these issues can be produced both by research Are the social sciences and humanities moving on particular topics, such as child development, toward consensus about the biological under- mating, parenting, and social behavior (Dunbar pinnings of human behavior and cultural expe- and Barrett 2007; Gangestad and Simpson rience? If all the disciplines discussing these 2007; Buss 2016), and by research on gene– questions agreed on the validity of scientific culture coevolution and the cognitive founda- evidence, some eventual consensus would seem tions of cultural learning (Lumsden and Wilson more likely. The low regard in which science is 1981; Baumeister 2005; Richerson and Boyd held by disciplines that emphasize environmen- 2005; Cochran and Harpending 2009; Henrich tal causes suggests that there are no common 2016). Arguments that cultural meanings are criteria of epistemic validity by means of which independent of biological facts can be tested the two groups—those who emphasize genetic by cross-cultural comparisons that identify causes and those who emphasize environmental underlying commonalities in conceptions of causes, and especially cultural causes—could life phases, family and kinship, social relation- work toward a reasoned consensus. ships, and forms of imaginative culture, such as The common willingness to affirm that religions, ideologies, and the arts (Brown 1991; behavior and experience are produced by inter- Dissanayake 2000; Norenzayan and Heine actions between genes and environments offers 2005; Carroll 2012; Antweiler 2016). Research some prospect for reasoned debate. Even so, in cognitive and affective neuroscience can ambiguities and confusions over what is meant test claims for phenomenal experiential diver- by that interaction—what culture is, where sity (Panksepp 1998; Cacioppo and Patrick it originates, and how independent it is—are 2008; Chiao 2011; Decety and Cacioppo likely to impede rational agreement, and even 2011; Panksepp and Biven 2012). Is it true rational disagreement, on some of the questions that all cultures experience hunger, curiosity, that most urgently concern social scientists and sexual ardor, maternal affection, or loneliness humanists: the causes of human behavior, the in radically different ways? Are there in fact no causes of variations in behavior, the sources of common biological sources for kinship systems personal identity, and the sources of values, or patriotism? These are empirical questions. beliefs, and feelings. The degree to which science Particular empirical findings, if they are suf- can illuminate these questions is itself an issue of ficiently robust—supported by converging lines central concern in both the social sciences and of evidence—have a special status as “facts” the humanities. The failure to reach agreement against which hypotheses and theories can be on that one question is the chief obstacle imped- tested. A converse but complementary kind of ing rational debate on all the other questions. epistemic strength arises from the integration Insofar as affirmative scores on Gene– of individual facts within a larger network of Culture Interactionism provide a basis for explanatory principles. For the evolutionary rational debate and the testing of alterna- social sciences and evolutionary humanities, tive hypotheses, the question posed by the facts can be integrated within at least four main

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 27 Joseph Carroll et al. networks. The most comprehensive network, 2006; Smail 2008; Fukuyama 2011; Clasen containing the other three, is the whole system 2012; Fukuyama 2014; Carroll et al. 2015; of evolutionary biology, founded on Darwin’s Turchin 2015). Biocultural theory offers the theory of evolution by means of natural selec- most obvious and direct opportunities for inte- tion but extended and supported in the Modern grating cultural insights from the humanities Synthesis: the integration of Darwin’s theory within the explanatory networks made available with post-Mendelian genetics. Explanatory in evolutionary social science. networks that are specific to humans, and thus Researchers who declare that human to the social sciences and humanities, include behavior cannot be studied scientifically human life history theory, gene–culture coevo- can perhaps never be reached by appeals lution, and biocultural theory. based on evidence gathered in research like Human life history theory, a subset of life that pursued by scientists and scholars who history theory in general biology, organizes affirm a biological basis for human behav- basic motives and kinds of human relation- ior. But then, there is no epistemic method ships in a species-typical configuration, extend- or body of beliefs on which humanity as a ing over the main phases of life. Research on whole has ever reached complete consensus. human life history analyzes the interdependent All over the world, large numbers of people causal functions of anatomical and neurological believe in various forms of supernatural- development, modes of provisioning, reproduc- ism, both religious and merely superstitious. tion, sexual division of labor, family, kinship, In the United States, creationists occupy con- and social interaction (Kaplan and Gangestad siderable space in public discourse. Among 2005; Wade 2006; Hill, Barton, and Hurtado the comments in the survey, a few express 2009; Kaplan, Gurven, and Winking 2009; overtly religious skepticism about the prem- Hill et al. 2011; Muehlenbein and Flinn 2011; ises of the survey. For instance, “Man is Wade 2014). a spiritual being. Material factors depend Gene–culture coevolution delineates the on our beliefs; they can be changed by our sequence of causal interactions, over evo- spiritual development. I believe in spiritual lutionary time scales, between physical factors as playing a great role in the devel- evolution—anatomical, physiological, and neu- opment of individual beings as well as cul- rological—and cultural practices. Many evolu- tures. I don’t believe in the genetic evolution tionary social scientists now recognize that the of species. There is an imprint of divinity in human species has uniquely developed capac- each person that ensures our commonalities” ities for acquiring cultural learning, and that (ethnic studies). those capacities have, over millions of years, Most researchers who regard human behav- profoundly altered the human genome, shaping ior as beyond the reach of science, or who deny the body and brain and generating the potential that science has any special claims on the pro- for complex technology and social interaction duction of knowledge, have more academic (Lumsden and Wilson 1981, 1983; Boyd and respectability than creationists, but they are Richerson 2007; Cochran and Harpending similar to creationists in that they step willingly 2009; Carroll 2011; Henrich 2016). outside the circle of knowledge susceptible Biocultural theory assimilates the concepts to empirical falsification. Are the culturalists in evolutionary biology, human life history and bioculturalists then at an impasse, unable theory, and gene–culture coevolution, and to find shared epistemic ground? The status brings them to bear on the interactions between quo, in intellectual as in political history, is culture and biologically grounded motives and never really stable, certainly not permanent. passions in specific historical cultures (Turchin The statistical snapshot taken in this survey

28 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science is a moment in time, a cross section from a deeper levels of inquiry, and revealing deeper landscape constantly changing, and now tend- networks of causal explanation—the less fea- ing unmistakably toward an integrated biocul- sible it will seem for any serious academic tural understanding of human behavior. The discipline to claim exemption from criteria of further biocultural research goes in producing empirical validity, and the less attraction any knowledge about particular cultures—opening such claim will exercise.

WORKS CITED

Alcock, John. 2001. The Triumph of Sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Antweiler, Christoph. 2016. Our Common Denominator: Human Universals Revisited. Translated by Diane Kerns. New York: Berghahn. Arnold, Matthew. (1882) 1974. “Literature and Science.” In Philistinism in England and America, edited by R. H. Super, 53–73. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Aronowitz, Stanley. 1996. “The Politics of the Science Wars.” Social Text 14 (1/2): 177–97. Baumeister, Roy F. 2005. The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. 2007. “Cultural Adaptation and Maladaptation: Of Kayaks and Commissars.” In The Evo- lution of Mind: Fundamental Questions and Controversies, edited by Steven W. Gangestad and Jeffry A. Simpson, 327–31. New York: Guilford. Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human Universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Brown, James Robert. 2001. Who Rules in Science? An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buss, David M., ed. 2016. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Buss, David M., and Neil M. Malamuth, eds. 1996. Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Cacioppo, John T., and William Patrick. 2008. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. New York: Norton. Carroll, Joseph. 2011a. “Human Life History and Gene-Culture Co-Evolution: An Emerging Paradigm.” Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture 2:23–37. ______. 2011b. “The Science Wars in a Long View: Putting the Human in Its Place.” In Reading Human Nature: Literary Darwin- ism in Theory and Practice, 259–70. Albany: State University of New York Press. ______. 2012. “The Truth about Fiction: Biological Reality and Imaginary Lives.” Style 46 (2): 129–60. Carroll, Joseph, Mathias Clasen, Emelie Jonsson, Alexandra Regina Kratschmer, Luseadra McKerracher, Felix Riede, Jens- Christian Svenning, and Peter C. Kjærgaard. 2015. “Biocultural Theory: The Current State of Knowledge.” Evolutionary Be- havioral Sciences. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-46273-001/. Carroll, Joseph, Dan P. McAdams, and Edward O. Wilson, eds. 2016. Darwin’s Bridge: Uniting the Humanities and Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press. Chiao, Joan Y. 2011. “Cultural Neuroscience: Visualizing Culture-Gene Influences on Brain Function.” InHandbook of Social Neuroscience, edited by Jean Decety and John T. Cacioppo. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chirumbolo, Antonio, and Luigi Leone. 2010. “Personality and Politics: The Role of the HEXACO Model of Personality in Predict- ing Ideology and Voting.” Personality and Individual Differences 49 (1): 43–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.004. Clasen, Mathias. 2012. “Monsters Evolve: A Biocultural Approach to Horror Stories.” Review of General Psychology 16 (2): 222–29. doi:10.1037/a0027918. Cochran, Gregory, and Henry Harpending. 2009. The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. New York: Basic Books. Culotta, Elizabeth. 2012. “Roots of Racism.” Science 336 (6083): 825–27. doi:10.1126/science.336.6083.825. Decety, Jean, and John T. Cacioppo, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Social Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press. Degler, Carl N. 1991. In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. De Vries, Reinout E., Joshua M. Tybur, Thomas V. Pollet, and Mark van Vugt. 2016. “Evolution, Situational Affordances, and the

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 29 Joseph Carroll et al.

HEXACO Model of Personality.” Evolution and Human Behavior 37 (5): 407–21. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.001. Dissanayake, Ellen. 2000. Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Dodd, Michael D., Amanda Balzer, Carly M. Jacobs, Michael W. Gruszczynski, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Hibbing. 2012. “The Political Left Rolls with the Good and the Political Right Confronts the Bad: Connecting Physiology and Cognition to Prefer- ences.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367 (1589): 640–49. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0268. Duarte, José L., Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim, and Philip E. Tetlock. 2015. “Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38:e130. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430. Dunbar, Robin I. M., and Louise Barrett. 2007. Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eysenck, Hans J., and Glenn D. Wilson. 1978. The Psychological Basis of Ideology. Baltimore: University Park Press. Fox, Robin. 1989. The Search for Society: Quest for a Biosocial Science and Morality. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Fukuyama, Francis. 2011. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ______. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gangestad, Steven W., and Jeffry A. Simpson, eds. 2007.The Evolution of Mind: Fundamental Questions and Controversies. New York: Guilford. Gould, Stephen Jay. (1981) 2008. The Mismeasure of Man. Revised and expanded edition, with a new introduction. New York: Norton. Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek. 2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Founda- tions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (5): 1029–46. doi:10.1037/a0015141. Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. 1994. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon. Henrich, Joseph 2016. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hill, Kim, Michael Barton, and A. Magdalena Hurtado. 2009. “The Emergence of Human Uniqueness: Characters Underlying Behavioral Modernity.” Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 18 (5): 187–200. doi:10.1002/evan.20224. Hill, Kim R., Robert S. Walker, Miran Bozicevic, James Eder, Thomas Headland, Barry Hewlett, A. Magdalena Hurtado, Frank Mar- lowe, Polly Wiessner, and Brian Wood. 2011. “Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Show Unique Human Social Structure.” Science 331 (6022): 1286–89. doi:10.1126/science.1199071. Hirsh, Jacob B., Colin G. DeYoung, Xu Xiaowen, and Jordan B. Peterson. 2010. “Compassionate Liberals and Polite Conserva- tives: Associations of Agreeableness with Political Ideology and Moral Values.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (5): 655–64. doi:10.1177/0146167210366854. Horowitz, Mark, William Yaworsky, and Kenneth Kickham. 2014. “Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evo- lutionary Biological Ideas among Sociological Theorists.” Sociological Spectrum 34 (6): 489–509. doi:10.1080/02732173.2 014.947451. Huxley, Thomas H. (1880) 1898. “Science and Culture.” In Science and Education, 134–59. New York: D. Appleton. Kaplan, Hillard S., and Steven W. Gangestad. 2005. “Life History Theory and Evolutionary Psychology.” In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David M. Buss, 68–95. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Kaplan, Hillard, Michael Gurven, and Jeffrey Winking. 2009. “An Evolutionary Theory of Human Life Span: Embodied Capital and the Human Adaptive Complex.” In Handbook of Theories of Aging, edited by Vern L. Bengston, Daphna Gans, Norella M. Pulney, and Merril Silverstein, 39–60. New York: Springer. Kenrick, Douglas T. 2011. Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life: A Psychologist Investigates How Evolution, Cognition, and Com- plexity Are Revolutionizing Our View of Human Nature. New York: Basic Books. Koertge, Noretta. 1998. A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. New York: Oxford University Press. Leavis, F. R. (1959) 1972. “Two Cultures? The Significance of Lord Snow.” InNor Shall My Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compas- sion, and Social Hope, 41–74. London: Chatto and Windus. Lee, Kibeom, and Michael C. Ashton. 2012. The H Factor of Personality: Why Some People Are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materi- alistic, and Exploitive—and Why It Matters for Everyone. Waterloo, Ontario, CA: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

30 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science

Lewontin, Richard C. 1980. “Sociobiology: Another Biological Determinism.” International Journal of Health Services 10 (3): 347–63. Lewontin, Richard C., Steven P. R. Rose, and Leon J. Kamin. 1984. Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon. Lumsden, Charles J., and Edward O. Wilson. 1981. Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press. ______. 1983. Promethean Fire: Reflections on the Origin of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Muehlenbein, Michael P., and Mark V. Flinn. 2011. “Patterns and Processes of Human Life History Evolution.” In Mechanisms of Life History Evolution: The Genetics and Physiology of Life History Traits and Trade-Offs, edited by Thomas Flatt and Andreas Heyland, 153–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norenzayan, Ara, and Steven J. Heine. 2005. “Psychological Universals: What Are They and How Can We Know?” Psychological Bulletin 131 (5): 763–84. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.763. Oakley, Barbara. 2014. “Empathy in Academe: On the Origins of Pathological Altruism.” Academic Questions 27 (1): 48–64. doi:10.1007/s12129-013-9403-2. Panksepp, Jaak. 1998. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press. Panksepp, Jaak, and Lucy Biven. 2012. The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. New York: Norton. Parsons, Keith M. 2003. The Science Wars: Debating Scientific Knowledge and Technology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. Paulhus, Delroy L., and Oliver P. John. 1998. “Egoistic and Moralistic Biases in Self-Perception: The Interplay of Self-Deceptive Styles with Basic Traits and Motives.” Journal of Personality 66 (6): 1025–60. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00041. Paulhus, Delroy L., and Paul D. Trapnell. 2008. “Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework.” In Hand- book of Personality: Theory and Research, edited by Oliver P. John, Richard W. Robins, and Lawrence A. Pervin, 492–517. New York: Guilford. Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking. Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. 2005. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rindermann, Heiner, Carmen Flores-Mendoza, and Michael A. Woodley. 2012. “Political Orientations, Intelligence and Educa- tion.” Intelligence 40 (2): 217–25. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.005. Rushton, J. Philippe. 2000. Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. 3rd ed. Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. Sarich, Vincent, and Frank Miele. 2004. Race: The Reality of Human Differences. Boulder, CO: Westview. Segerstråle, Ullica Christina Olofsdotter. 2000.Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Be- yond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slingerland, Edward G., and Mark Collard. 2012. Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities. New York: Oxford University Press. Smail, Daniel Lord. 2008. On Deep History and the Brain. Berkeley: University of California Press. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. 2006. Scandalous Knowledge: Science, Truth and the Human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ______. 2016. “Scientizing the Humanities: Shifts, Collisions, Negotiations.” Common Knowledge 22 (3): 353–72. doi:10.1215/0961754X-3622212. Snow, C. P. (1959) 1993. The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People. 1976. “Sociobiology—Another Biological Determinism.” BioScience 26 (3): 182–86. Sokal, Alan D., and Jean Bricmont. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador. Ståhl, Tomas, Maarten P. Zaal, and Linda J. Skitka. 2016. “Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue.” PLOS ONE 11 (11): e0166332. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0166332. Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. 1990. “On the Universality of Human Nature and the Uniqueness of the Individual: The Role of Genetics and Adaptation.” Journal of Personality 58 (1): 17–67. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep8970991.

ESIC | Vol. 1 | No. 1 | Spring 2017 31 Joseph Carroll et al.

______. 1992. “The Psychological Foundations of Culture.” In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture., edited by Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, 19–136. New York: Oxford University Press. Turchin, Peter. 2006. War and Peace and War: The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations. New York: Pi. ______. 2015. Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth. Chaplin, CT: Beresta. Tybur, Joshua M., Geoffrey F. Miller, and Steven W. Gangestad. 2007. “Testing the Controversy.” Human Nature 18 (4): 313–28. doi:10.1007/s12110-007-9024-y. Vandermassen, Griet. 2005. Who’s Afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating Feminism and Evolutionary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Wade, Nicholas. 2006. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: Penguin. ______. 2014. A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History. New York: Penguin. Weinberg, Steven. 2001. Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Knopf.

32 Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture