DOCSLIB.ORG

States in Mind Anthony C. Lopez, Rose Mcdermott, and Michael

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
States in Mind Anthony C. Lopez, Rose Mcdermott, and Michael States in Mind States in Mind Anthony C. Lopez, Rose McDermott, and Evolution, Coalitional Psychology, and Michael Bang International Politics Petersen One of the most com- monly studied puzzles in international politics is the recurrence of coalitional competition and aggression between political groups such as states. Indeed, this pattern constitutes an enduring and central feature of all politics. Yet de- spite the tragic endurance of this leitmotif throughout history, its manifestation varies through time and space. Some wars are fought for honor or revenge, whereas others are ignited for mere opportunism or as a consequence of vari- ous misperceptions, whatever their source. We argue that evolutionary theory provides a theoretical framework that can explain both the stubborn endur- ance and dynamic diversity of coalitional behavior. Debate on the relevance of “human nature” and biological factors for explaining political behavior is not new.1 Yet the comprehensive value of evo- lutionary theory for explaining important aspects of international politics has not been adequately explicated. As we discuss below, this has in part been a consequence of general skepticism about the validity and scope of evolution- ary theory for explaining political behavior. We argue, however, that evolu- tionary psychology can generate falsiªable ex ante predictions that are of central interest to the study of international politics, and we offer several hy- potheses derived from this model to illustrate the depth of this approach. Evo- lutionary psychologists have already generated a large body of work that suggests that the human brain contains webs of psychological mechanisms, or adaptations, each designed to operate in domains relevant to modern politics, and which emerged as a product of natural selection. Furthermore, researchers have begun to realize that humans come equipped with an evolved “coali- Anthony C. Lopez is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Brown University. Rose McDermott is Profes- sor of Political Science at Brown University. Michael Bang Petersen is Associate Professor of Political Sci- ence and Government at Aarhus University. The authors would like to thank Leda Cosmides, Andrew Delton, Max Krasnow, Aaron Sell, John Tooby, and the participants of the research seminar at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, for critical feedback on concepts developed in this arti- cle. For helpful comments on earlier drafts, the authors are indebted to Benjamin Cohen, Jonathan Cowden, Jonathan Mercer, and the anonymous reviewers. 1. John R. Alford and John R. Hibbing, “The Origin of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Politi- cal Behavior,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 2, No. 4 (December 2004), pp. 707–723; Bradley A. Thayer, “Bringing in Darwin: Evolutionary Theory, Realism, and International Politics,” Interna- tional Security, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 124–151; and Duncan S.A. Bell and Paul K. MacDon- ald, “Correspondence: Start the Evolution without Us,” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 187–194. International Security, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 48–83 © 2011 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 48 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00056 by guest on 28 September 2021 States in Mind 49 tional psychology,” as a consequence of adaptive problems faced by our ances- tors related to social and political life such as collective action, coalition formation and maintenance, cheater detection, resource division, the negotia- tion of status hierarchies, and war.2 Note that all of these problems have obvi- ous modern analogues that leaders and countries confront daily and that constitute the central themes of the study of international politics. Thus, we argue that evolutionary psychology provides a necessary frame- work for explaining the puzzling endurance of many types of international be- havior, such as coalitional aggression and its modern manifestation, war. We aim to show that evolutionary psychology can indeed offer useful and falsi- ªable hypotheses for international politics, and that misgivings regarding such an approach have no theoretical merit. Furthermore, this approach is dynamic enough to encompass disparate motives and preference structures—egoism and cooperativeness; rational and “irrational” behavior—under the same ex- planatory rubric that can help to solve old puzzles and shed light on new discoveries. These goals are accomplished in three sections. First, we introduce the theo- retical framework of evolutionary psychology. Second, we respond to what we identify as two major misconceptions about the use of evolutionary theory for explaining political behavior. The ªrst misconception argues that evolutionary models are “politically indeterminate,” and the second argues that evolution- ary theory cannot be used to generate predictions in the realm of social or political behavior. In the third section, we develop and present speciªc hy- potheses within three areas of inquiry: (1) perception and representation of po- litical coalitions such as states; (2) the facilitation of action within and between coalitions; and (3) sex differences in political attitudes and behavior. These three areas make up a signiªcant aspect of what we refer to as human “coali- tional psychology.” This coalitional psychology represents the set of underly- ing psychological mechanisms, designed by natural selection, that enables and generates behavior among and within coalitions. As we discuss in detail be- low, this coalitional psychology is active in the management of internal coali- 2. John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, and Michael E. Price, “Cognitive Adaptations for n-Person Ex- change: The Evolutionary Roots of Organizational Behavior,” Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 27, Nos. 2–3 (March–May 2006), pp. 103–129; Azar Gat, War in Human Civilization (Oxford: Ox- ford University Press, 2006); Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999); Michael E. Price, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, “Punitive Sentiment as an Anti-Free Rider Psychological Device,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3 (May 2002), pp. 203–231; Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997); and Richard W. Wrangham, “Evolution of Coalitionary Killing,” Year- book of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 42 (1999), pp. 1–30. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00056 by guest on 28 September 2021 International Security 36:2 50 tion dynamics such as leadership and cooperation, as well as in the external dynamics of competition and aggression (war) among coalitions. Evolutionary Psychology: A Theoretical Introduction Evolutionary psychology is an approach to understanding behavior that ar- gues that the functional structure of the human brain has been designed by natural selection to respond reliably and efªciently to adaptive problems in our ancestral social and ecological environments.3 An “adaptive problem” is any challenge, threat, or opportunity faced by an organism in its environment that is evolutionarily recurrent (i.e., not a onetime or otherwise novel problem) and affects reproductive success. For example, coalitional aggression, or war, has been a persistent social challenge faced by humans over the course of their evolution.4 Researchers have provided theoretical and empirical support for the existence of evolved psychological mechanisms in humans designed by natural selection to navigate the challenge of coalitional conºict.5 In this arti- cle, we use the word “mechanism” to refer to psychological adaptations that have been designed by natural selection. These psychological mechanisms, as our main unit of analysis, are physically instantiated systems in the brain that take a range of input from within and around the organism, and transform 3. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, “From Evolution to Behavior: Evolutionary Psychology as the Missing Link,” in John Dupré, ed., The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality (Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987), pp. 276–306; Jerome H. Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, eds., The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); and David M. Buss, ed., The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, 2005). Our discussion of evolutionary psychology follows the adaptationist approach of evolutionary biology’s “modern synthesis.” See George C. Williams, Ad- aptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966); and Ernst Mayr, “How to Carry Out the Adaptationist Pro- gram?” American Naturalist, Vol. 121, No. 3 (March 1983), pp. 324–334. 4. Lawrence H. Keeley, War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Keith F. Otterbein, “The Origins of War,” Critical Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Spring 1997), pp. 251–277; Azar Gat, “The Human Motivational Complex: Evolutionary Theory and the Causes of Hunter-Gatherer Fighting, Pt. 1: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes,” Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 1 (January 2000), pp. 20–34; and Steven A. LeBlanc and Kath- erine E. Register, Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage (New York: St. Martin’s, 2003). 5. John Tooby
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Folk Psychology of Souls
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2006) 29, 453–498 Printed in the United States of America The folk psychology of souls Jesse M. Bering Institute of Cognition and Culture, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom. [email protected] qub.ac.uk/icc http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofCognitionCulture/Staff/ JesseMBering/ Abstract: The present article examines how people’s belief in an afterlife, as well as closely related supernatural beliefs, may open an empirical backdoor to our understanding of the evolution of human social cognition. Recent findings and logic from the cognitive sciences contribute to a novel theory of existential psychology, one that is grounded in the tenets of Darwinian natural selection. Many of the predominant questions of existential psychology strike at the heart of cognitive science. They involve: causal attribution (why is mortal behavior represented as being causally related to one’s afterlife? how are dead agents envisaged as communicating messages to the living?), moral judgment (why are certain social behaviors, i.e., transgressions, believed to have ultimate repercussions after death or to reap the punishment of disgruntled ancestors?), theory of mind (how can we know what it is “like” to be dead? what social-cognitive strategies do people use to reason about the minds of the dead?), concept acquisition (how does a common-sense dualism interact with a formalized socio-religious indoctrination in childhood? how are supernatural properties of the dead conceptualized by young minds?), and teleological reasoning (why do people so often see their lives as being designed for a purpose that must be accomplished before they perish? how do various life events affect people’s interpretation of this purpose?), among others.
    [Show full text]
  • Author's Personal Copy
    Author's personal copy Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 35 (2011) 1042–1051 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neubiorev Review Human threat management systems: Self•protection and disease avoidance Steven L. Neuberg a,∗, Douglas T. Kenrick a, Mark Schaller b a Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287•1104, United States b Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 article info abstract Article history: Humans likely evolved precautionary systems designed to minimize the threats to reproductive fitness Received 8 March 2010 posed by highly interdependent ultrasociality. A review of research on the self•protection and disease Received in revised form 18 August 2010 avoidance systems reveals that each system is functionally distinct and domain•specific: each is attuned Accepted 18 August 2010 to different cues; engages different emotions, inferences, and behavioral inclinations; and is rooted in somewhat different neurobiological substrates. These systems share important features, however. Each Keywords: system is functionally coherent, in that perceptual, affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes work Self•protection in concert to reduce fitness costs of potential threats. Each system is biased in a risk•averse manner, Disease avoidance Threat management erring toward precautionary responses even when available cues only heuristically imply threat. And Precautionary psychology each system is functionally flexible, being highly sensitive to specific ecological and dispositional cues Evolutionary psychology that signal greater vulnerability to the relevant threat. These features characterize a general template Domain specificity useful for understanding not only the self•protection and disease avoidance systems, but also a broader Fear set of evolved, domain•specific precautionary systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership, Followership, and Evolution Some Lessons from the Past
    Leadership, Followership, and Evolution Some Lessons From the Past Mark Van Vugt University of Kent Robert Hogan Hogan Assessment Systems Robert B. Kaiser Kaplan DeVries Inc. This article analyzes the topic of leadership from an evo- Second, the literature focuses on leaders and tends to lutionary perspective and proposes three conclusions that ignore the essential role of followers (Hollander, 1992; are not part of mainstream theory. First, leading and Yukl, 2006). Third, research largely concentrates on prox- following are strategies that evolved for solving social imate issues of leadership (e.g., What makes one person a coordination problems in ancestral environments, includ- better leader than others?) and rarely considers its ultimate ing in particular the problems of group movement, intra- functions (e.g., How did leadership promote survival and group peacekeeping, and intergroup competition. Second, reproductive success among our ancestors?) (R. Hogan & the relationship between leaders and followers is inher- Kaiser, 2005). Finally, there has been little cross-fertiliza- ently ambivalent because of the potential for exploitation of tion between psychology and disciplines such as anthro- followers by leaders. Third, modern organizational struc- pology, economics, neuroscience, biology, and zoology, tures are sometimes inconsistent with aspects of our which also contain important insights about leadership evolved leadership psychology, which might explain the (Bennis, 2007; Van Vugt, 2006). alienation and frustration of many citizens and employees. This article offers a view of leadership inspired by The authors draw several implications of this evolutionary evolutionary theory, which modern scholars increasingly analysis for leadership theory, research, and practice. see as essential for understanding social life (Buss, 2005; Lawrence & Nohria, 2002; McAdams & Pals, 2006; Nettle, Keywords: evolution, leadership, followership, game the- 2006; Schaller, Simpson, & Kenrick, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Beowulf and Competitive Altruism,” P
    January 2013 Volume 9, Issue 1 ASEBL Journal Association for the Study of Editor (Ethical Behavior)•(Evolutionary Biology) in Literature St. Francis College, Brooklyn Heights, N.Y. Gregory F. Tague, Ph.D. ~ Editorial Board ~▪▪~ Kristy Biolsi, Ph.D. THIS ISSUE FEATURES Kevin Brown, Ph.D. Wendy Galgan, Ph.D. † Eric Luttrell, “Modest Heroism: Beowulf and Competitive Altruism,” p. 2 Cheryl L. Jaworski, M.A. † Dena R. Marks, “Secretary of Disorientation: Writing the Circularity of Belief in Elizabeth Costello,” p.11 Anja Müller-Wood, Ph.D. Kathleen A. Nolan, Ph.D. † Margaret Bertucci Hamper, “’The poor little working girl’: The New Woman, Chloral, and Motherhood in The House of Mirth,” p. 19 Riza Öztürk, Ph.D. † Kristin Mathis, “Moral Courage in The Runaway Jury,” p. 22 Eric Platt, Ph.D. † William Bamberger, “A Labyrinthine Modesty: On Raymond Roussel Michelle Scalise Sugiyama, and Chiasmus,” p. 24 Ph.D. ~▪~ Editorial Interns † St. Francis College Moral Sense Colloquium: - Program Notes, p. 27 Tyler Perkins - Kristy L. Biolsi, “What Does it Mean to be a Moral Animal?”, p. 29 - Sophie Berman, “Science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme,” p.36 ~▪~ Kimberly Resnick † Book Reviews: - Lisa Zunshine, editor, Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies. Gregory F. Tague, p. 40 - Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth. Wendy Galgan, p. 42 ~▪~ ~ Contributor Notes, p. 45 Announcements, p. 45 ASEBL Journal Copyright©2013 E-ISSN: 1944-401X *~* [email protected] www.asebl.blogspot.com ASEBL Journal – Volume 9 Issue 1, January 2013 Modest Heroism: Beowulf and Competitive Altruism Eric Luttrell Christian Virtues or Human Virtues? Over the past decade, adaptations of Beowulf in popular media have portrayed the eponymous hero as a dim-witted and egotistical hot-head.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Massive Modularity
    3 In Defense of Massive Modularity Dan Sperber In October 1990, a psychologist, Susan Gelman, and three anthropolo- gists whose interest in cognition had been guided and encouraged by Jacques Mehler, Scott Atran, Larry Hirschfeld, and myself, organized a conference on “Cultural Knowledge and Domain Specificity” (see Hirsch- feld and Gelman, 1994). Jacques advised us in the preparation of the conference, and while we failed to convince him to write a paper, he did play a major role in the discussions. A main issue at stake was the degree to which cognitive development, everyday cognition, and cultural knowledge are based on dedicated do- main-specific mechanisms, as opposed to a domain-general intelligence and learning capacity. Thanks in particular to the work of developmental psychologists such as Susan Carey, Rochel Gelman, Susan Gelman, Frank Keil, Alan Leslie, Jacques Mehler, Elizabeth Spelke (who were all there), the issue of domain-specificity—which, of course, Noam Chomsky had been the first to raise—was becoming a central one in cognitive psychol- ogy. Evolutionary psychology, represented at the conference by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, was putting forward new arguments for seeing human cognition as involving mostly domain- or task-specific evolved adaptations. We were a few anthropologists, far from the main- stream of our discipline, who also saw domain-specific cognitive pro- cesses as both constraining and contributing to cultural development. Taking for granted that domain-specific dispositions are an important feature of human cognition, three questions arise: 1. To what extent are these domain-specific dispositions based on truly autonomous mental mechanisms or “modules,” as opposed to being 48 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Contact Information
    REBECCA NEEL Department of Psychology Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-1104 602-965-3326 EMPLOYMENT Beginning August, 2013 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa EDUCATION Ph.D., Psychology (May, 2013). Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Thesis: “Expert in the language of fear”: Stigmatized targets’ perception of others’ emotion-specific prejudice M.A., Psychology (2010). Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Thesis: When does seeing through your eyes help me? Emotions functionally encourage and inhibit perspective taking B.A., English Literature (2002). Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota. Cum Laude AWARDS AND HONORS 2013 SPSP Graduate Student Travel Award 2012 SPSSI Grant-in-Aid for Dissertation Research 2012 The Robert B. Cialdini Dissertation Project Prize in Social Psychology, ASU 2012 The Darwyn and Marie Linder Fellowship in Experimental Social Psychology, ASU 2012 ASU Graduate and Professional Student Association Grant for Independent Research 2011 Summer Institute in Social Psychology, Princeton, NJ; SPSP program funded by NSF 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ASU Graduate and Professional Student Association Grant for Conference Travel 2008 ASU Graduate and Professional Student Association Grant for Independent Research 2007 Departmental Research Excellence Award, ASU Psychology Department Neel CV RESEARCH Publications White, A.E., Kenrick, D.T., Neel, R., & Neuberg, S.L. (in press). From the bedroom to the budget deficit: Mate competition changes men’s attitudes toward economic redistribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sadalla, E., Berlin, A., Neel, R., & Ledlow, S. (in press). Priorities in residential water use: A trade-off analysis. Environment and Behavior. Neel, R., Neufeld, S.L., & Neuberg, S.L. (2013). Would an obese person whistle Vivaldi? Targets of prejudice self-present to minimize appearance of specific threats.
    [Show full text]
  • An Adaptationist Framework for Personality Science
    European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers. (2020) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.2292 An Adaptationist Framework for Personality Science AARON W. LUKASZEWSKI1*, DAVID M.G. LEWIS2, PATRICK K. DURKEE3, AARON N. SELL4, DANIEL SZNYCER5 and DAVID M. BUSS3 1Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, CA USA 2School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Perth, WA Australia 3Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX USA 4Psychology and Criminology Department, Heidelberg University, Tiffin, OH USA 5Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC Canada Abstract: The field of personality psychology aspires to construct an overarching theory of human nature and indi- vidual differences: one that specifies the psychological mechanisms that underpin both universal and variable aspects of thought, emotion, and behaviour. Here, we argue that the adaptationist toolkit of evolutionary psychology provides a powerful meta-theory for characterizing the psychological mechanisms that give rise to within-person, between- person, and cross-cultural variations. We first outline a mechanism-centred adaptationist framework for personality science, which makes a clear ontological distinction between (i) psychological mechanisms designed to generate be- havioural decisions and (ii) heuristic trait concepts that function to perceive, describe, and influence others behaviour and reputation in everyday life. We illustrate the utility
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Politics Of
    POLITICS OF WAR Political Science 343 Portland State University, Spring 2018 David Kinsella Department of Political Science Hatfield School of Government Office: Urban Center Building, room 650L 503.725.3035 | [email protected] Office Hours: Monday & Wednesday 1:00-2:00 Description Issues of war and peace have long been of central importance to world politics. War seems to be an enduring feature of international history and is the subject of constant analysis and commentary. Peace is less frequently analyzed than war, perhaps because its universal value seems to be taken for granted. But how much to we really know about war and peace? The course examines how conflict is manifest in world politics. We take up the subject of violent conflict and its causes: the roots of aggression, weapons proliferation, interstate and civil war, and terrorism. We also consider forces restraining war, including the laws and ethics of war. Throughout the term we will focus on both practical and theoretical issues—historical overviews of specific wars as well as theories and moral arguments pertaining to the recurrence of violence in the international. Learning Objectives The general objective of this course is to develop the student’s capacity to critically examine problems in international conflict and cooperation, consider the range of possible solutions to those problems, and communicate this analysis to others. This is to be accomplished by exposing students to relevant literature from the fields of international politics and foreign policy. By the end of the term, students should be able to: show a familiarity with a wide range of substantive issues in war and peace; interpret historical and contemporary wars and military interventions using appropriate theoretical frameworks; and articulate normative positions on key ethical dilemmas arising from conflict between and within states.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction ROBERT AUNGER a Number of Prominent Academics
    CHAPTER 1: Introduction ROBERT AUNGER A number of prominent academics have recently argued that we are entering a period in which evolutionary theory is being applied to every conceivable domain of inquiry. Witness the development of fields such as evolutionary ecology (Krebs and Davies 1997), evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982), evolutionary psychology (Barkow et al. 1992), evolutionary linguistics (Pinker 1994) and literary theory (Carroll 1995), evolutionary epistemology (Callebaut and Pinxten 1987), evolutionary computational science (Koza 1992), evolutionary medicine (Nesse and Williams 1994) and psychiatry (McGuire and Troisi 1998) -- even evolutionary chemistry (Wilson and Czarnik 1997) and evolutionary physics (Smolin 1997). Such developments certainly suggest that Darwin’s legacy continues to grow. The new millennium can therefore be called the Age of Universal Darwinism (Dennett 1995; Cziko 1995). What unifies these approaches? Dan Dennett (1995) has argued that Darwin’s “dangerous idea” is an abstract algorithm, often called the “replicator dynamic.” This dynamic consists of repeated iterations of selection from among randomly mutating replicators. Replicators, in turn, are units of information with the ability to reproduce themselves using resources from some material substrate. Couched in these terms, the evolutionary process is obviously quite general. for example, the replicator dynamic, when played out on biological material such as DNA, is called natural selection. But Dennett suggests there are essentially no limits to the phenomena which can be treated using this algorithm, although there will be variation in the degree to which such treatment leads to productive insights. The primary hold-out from “evolutionarization,” it seems, is the social sciences. Twenty-five years have now passed since the biologist Richard Dawkins introduced the notion of a meme, or an idea that becomes commonly shared through social transmission, into the scholastic lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • Balanced Biosocial Theory for the Social Sciences
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2004 Balanced biosocial theory for the social sciences Michael A Restivo University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Restivo, Michael A, "Balanced biosocial theory for the social sciences" (2004). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 1635. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/5jp5-vy39 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BALANCED BIOSOCIAL THEORY FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Michael A. Restivo Bachelor of Arts IPIoridkijSjlarrhcIJiuAHsrsity 2001 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillm ent ofdœnxpnnnnenkfbrthe Master of Arts Degree in Sociology Departm ent of Sociology College of Liberal Arts Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas M ay 2004 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1422154 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Politics and Law
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 38 Number 4 Summer 2004 pp.1129-1248 Summer 2004 Evolution, Politics and Law Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, Evolution, Politics and Law, 38 Val. U. L. Rev. 1129 (2004). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol38/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Kuklin: Evolution, Politics and Law VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 38 SUMMER 2004 NUMBER 4 Article EVOLUTION, POLITICS AND LAW Bailey Kuklin* I. Introduction ............................................... 1129 II. Evolutionary Theory ................................. 1134 III. The Normative Implications of Biological Dispositions ......................... 1140 A . Fact and Value .................................... 1141 B. Biological Determinism ..................... 1163 C. Future Fitness ..................................... 1183 D. Cultural N orm s .................................. 1188 IV. The Politics of Sociobiology ..................... 1196 A. Political Orientations ......................... 1205 B. Political Tactics ................................... 1232 V . C onclusion ................................................. 1248 I. INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Steps to an Evolutionary Ecology of Mind and Morality
    This page intentionally left blank Death, Hope and Sex Steps to an Evolutionary Ecology of Mind and Morality By showing how and why human nature is what is is, evolutionary theory can help us see better what we need to do to improve the human condition. Following evolutionary theory to its logical conclusion, Death, Hope, and Sex uses life history theory and attachment theory to construct a model of human nature in which critical features are understood in terms of the development of alternative reproductive strategies contingent on environmental risk and uncertainty. James Chisholm examines the implication of this model for perspectives on concerns associated with human reproduction, including teen pregnancy, and young male violence. He thus develops new approaches for thorny issues such as the nature–nurture and mind–body dichotomies. Bridging the gap between the social and biological sciences, this far-reaching volume will be a source of inspiration, debate, and discussion for all those interested in the evolution of human nature and the potential for an evolutionary humanism. james s. chisholm is Associate Professor in the Department of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia in Perth, Australia. His previous publications include Navajo Infancy: An Ethological Study of Child Development (1983). Death, Hope and Sex Steps to an Evolutionary Ecology of Mind and Morality James S. Chisholm The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © James S.
    [Show full text]