McNair Scholars Journal Volume 12 | Issue 1 Article 10 2008 What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate: Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory Ben Winegard Grand Valley State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair Recommended Citation Winegard, Ben (2008) "What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate: Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory," McNair Scholars Journal: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 10. Available at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair/vol12/iss1/10 Copyright © 2008 by the authors. McNair Scholars Journal is reproduced electronically by ScholarWorks@GVSU. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ mcnair?utm_source=scholarworks.gvsu.edu%2Fmcnair%2Fvol12%2Fiss1%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate: Using a Model to Explain Textbook Representations of Human Evolutionary Theory Abstract I.1 Theoretical Overview of Human Evolutionary Theory In this paper we develop a general model to explain the hostility toward, and igno- Human evolutionary theory (used here rance of, human evolutionary theory (ET) interchangeably with ET1) is a theoretical in the social sciences. We first provide approach to the entire field of human sci- relevant theoretical background explain- ence motivated by the desire to illumi- ing the basics of ET. We then briefly nate human behavior by subjecting it to describe the history of, and reasons for, evolutionary analysis (Barkow, Cos- social science attacks against ET. After mides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss 1995; Tooby providing this background, we turn to & Cosmides, 2005). More specifically, our study of social science textbooks, it approaches human nature from an describe the logic of our model, and adaptationist perspective, attempting Ben Winegard specify four explicit predictions derived to discern the specific adaptations that McNair Scholar from it. Finally, we present the results of underlie and give rise to human behav- our study and discuss the significance of ior—especially social behavior (e.g., our findings. mating behavior, cooperation, coalitional behavior, family dynamics, etc.) (Sand- erson, 2001). Although often seen as contentious or controversial (see section II below; see also Rose and Rose, 2000), its ability to elucidate human behavior follows from two simple and uncontro- versial facts: 1) Evolution explains the nature of the biological world, and 2) Humans are biological creatures (Atran, 2005). If these premises are accepted— and most social scientists do accept them—ET should appear a natural, inevi- Robert Deaner, Ph.D. table, and fruitful approach to the study Faculty Mentor of human behavior. In fact, ET provides a productive metatheory for the social sciences, unlike other popular theoreti- cal perspectives such as rational choice theory, which assumes that individuals choose the ‘best’ action according to stable preferences with well-defined con- straints (Simon, 1955; Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000; Kanazawa, 2001). Because of its insistence on viewing humans as evolved organisms, ET asserts that an under- standing of natural selection and sexual selection is essential for a comprehensive understanding of human behavior (Mayr, 1985; Buss, 1995; Tooby and Cosmides, 2005). 1 There are several theoretical perspectives that apply evolutionary theory to human social behavior, including socio- biology, dual inheritance theory, behavioral ecology, and evolutionary psychology (see Smith, 2000), all with slightly different assumptions and methods, yet all similar at core. For simplicity, we use the umbrella term ET. GVSU McNair Scholars Journal VOLUME 12, 2008 119 I.2 Natural and Sexual Selection second type of attribute is illustrated by modern ET. Also important to ET was the peacock’s elaborate train. Although the socially oriented biological think- Darwin’s theories of natural selec- the train appears to have no direct surviv- ing of Wilson (1975/2000) and Trivers tion and sexual selection are essential to al function, it serves to attract peahens; (1971; 1972). Especially relevant are two understanding ET. Darwin was not the therefore, on average, peacocks with theories developed by Trivers: reciprocal first thinker to propose that life evolves; large, colorful trains leave more offspring altruism and parental investment. rather, he was the first thinker to pro- than do those with less elaborate trains Reciprocal altruism consists of pose a plausible mechanism2 explain- (Petrie & Halliday, 1994). delayed but mutual acts of benefaction ing why and how life evolves (Darwin Darwin’s theories established a between organisms (Trivers, 1971). For 1859/1958). His proposal can be reduced scientific paradigm for biology, and like example, if an animal shares food with to three principles: 1) Organisms vary in all paradigms, it has been continually another at time x and receives food back their ability to reproduce. Some chee- refined. For example, Hamilton’s (1964) at time y, both animals may benefit. tahs, for example, run faster than others theory of inclusive fitness shifted the Although reciprocal altruism has been and consequently can procure more focus of biologists from individuals and reported in animals as diverse as vampire resources; ceteris paribus, such cheetahs their direct reproductive success to genes bats (Wilkinson, 1984) and stickleback will survive longer and are likely to have and their differential replication (Grif- fish (Milinski, Pfluger, Külling, & Ket- greater reproductive success. 2) Organ- fin & West, 2002). Since genes are the tler, 1990), primates provide the best isms inherit traits from their parents. real unit of natural selection, Hamilton documented cases. Primates preferential- Fast cheetahs pass their running ability argued that biologists needed to pay at- ly groom individuals who groom them; to their offspring. 3) More organisms tention to inclusive fitness rather than di- they preferentially support those who are born than survive. Organisms that rect fitness. If, for example, genes in one support them (Schino, 2007). Reciprocal inherit traits that allow them to more ef- organism gave rise to the ability to detect altruism is important because it allows fectively interact with their environment shared genes in another—a brother or for the evolution of greater cooperation are more likely to survive long enough sister, son or daughter, cousin or nephew, among non-related organisms, a kind of to reproduce. The faster cheetahs, for for example—and also to the propensity cooperation that is especially prevalent example, because they are better at ob- to help those genes replicate (under the among humans (Barber, 2004; Lehman taining important resources, will survive right circumstances)3, those genes (be- & Keller, 2006). and pass on their traits. The statistical cause of their phenotypic effects) would Parental investment explains the result of this process is a pool of “fitter” be selected for. The theory of inclusive diversity of mating strategies in nature organisms (see Alcock, 2005, for many fitness allowed biologists to explain (see also Clutton-Brock, 1991; Dunbar, specific empirical examples). many otherwise puzzling phenomena. To 1995). Because of its complexities, the A useful distinction can be made be- take a familiar example, humans are of- theory cannot be properly explicated tween natural selection proper and sexual ten willing to make enormous sacrifices here; however, one important facet of selection. According to Darwin (1871), for relatives, sacrifices they would not it—an argument that goes back to Dar- organisms not only compete for environ- make for strangers or even for friends. win (1871)—should be noted. Darwin mental resources, they also compete to Given this reality, it is not surprising that argued that when choosing mates the attract and acquire mates. This process is kin terms are universal (Brown, 2004) sex that invests more in its offspring will termed sexual selection and leads to two and are capable of provoking intense be more discriminating. By definition, different types of attributes: 1) attributes emotions (for a readable account of at- females produce larger gametes which that enhance an organism’s ability to tempts to explain altruism biologically, require higher initial investment than compete with members of its own sex for see Dugatkin, 2006). do male gametes. This difference leads access to mates, and 2) attributes that at- to adaptive strategies of high relative tract the opposite sex (Andersson, 1994; I.3 Roots of Sociobiology mating effort in males and high relative Andersson & Iwasa, 1996). The first type parental effort in females (Low, 2000). In of attribute is illustrated by the disparity Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory many animal species, males invest enor- in size between male and female elephant was vitally important because it set mous amounts of energy attempting to seals. Male elephant seals are an aver- the stage for the gene-centered view of attract and procure mates—the elaborate age of three times larger than females evolution, a view that was clarified in the bower of the bower bird, the huge train because they have a long evolutionary sixties and seventies by Williams (1966) of the peacock—while females invest history of competing with each other for and Dawkins (1976), among others, and vast amounts of energy in birthing and access to females (Le Boeuf, 1974). The provided the theoretical underpinning of caring