welcome to evolutionary psychology
together we'll explore this fascinating
frontier of understanding human
behaviors through the interface of
integrating psychology and evolutionary
biology
you
evolution psychology is a relatively new
discipline that applies the principles
of Darwinian natural selection to the
study of the human mind the principal
assumption of evolutionary psychology is
that the human mind should be considered
to be an organ that was designed by
natural selection to guide the
individual in making decisions that aid
survival and reproduction leading to
evolutionary adaptation by forces of
selection this may be done by species
specific instincts that enabled our
ancestors to survive and reproduce and
which give rise to a universal human
nature but equally the mind may be
viewed as an organ which is designed to
learn so contrary to what many people
think evolutionary psychology does not
suggest that every feature of the mind
is innate in this lecture we trace the
origins of evolutionary psychology and
present some of the arguments between
those who hold that the mind is a blank
slate and those who believe that human
behavior like that of other animals is
the product of a long history of
evolution reflect for a moment on which
of these camps you would place yourself
in if you had to favor one over the
other
blank slate or innate instincts a
fundamental assumption of evolutionary
psychology is that the human mind is the
product of evolution just like any other
bodily organ and that we gain a better
understanding of the mind by examining
evolutionary pressures that shaped it
why should this be the case what can an
understanding of an evolution bring to
psychology considering that scientists
were able to learn a great deal about
bodily organs such as the heart or a
hand long before Darwin formulated the
theory of natural selection but not all
body parts are as easy to understand as
a heart or a head a classic example is
the Peacocks tail this huge structure
encumbers the animal to the extent that
it makes it difficult to
and predators and requires a
considerable amount of energy sustained
it darlin was troubled by this and he
once remarked that the side of a feather
and a peacock tail whenever I gaze it it
makes me sick he knew that the male
peacock is evolutionarily burdened by
this tail and that his theory was
inadequate to account for it or to take
another even more perverse example the
male Australian read-back widow spider
who sacrifices himself to the female
following copulation read-back widow
spider mated cannibals were shown here
right back spiders
known for hanging out in dunnies and
their nasty little bite but if you ever
stop to think about their sex life
biologists from the University of
Toronto recently observed the gruesome
antics Redbacks indulging after
lights-out
the female is definitely the dominant
sex and can be up to a hundred times
heavier than the male and she can be
very daunting this one brushes a male
side as he approaches a smaller male
sneaks into the web and copulates while
the larger male continues his courtship
dance he plucks his love ballad on her
web to entice her but she has other
plans once made him she's hungry for
more than love maybe he'll survive her
potentially deadly love bite maybe not a
sneak peek into the McCobb and
cannibalistic world of the Redback
spider
you
the male's of the species somersaults
into the mouths of the female after
copulation has occurred which has been
shown to increase paternity by 65% when
compared to males that are not
cannibalized why would an animal be
designed to do that because this
increases the nutrients to the female
mother his offspring in his own genes
traditional psychological thinking deals
with more proximate questions which ask
about how a particular behavior develops
what its neural or cognitive
underpinnings are or whether it is
acquired or innate to the extent that
psychologists ever consider why we
perform particular behaviors they
usually concern themselves with the
benefit to the individual who performs
the behavior so while traditional
psychology focuses on smaller questions
evolutionary psychology concerns itself
with more ultimate questions asking why
a particular behavior exists at all so
it can explain the otherwise perplexing
behavior of the spider we are not
necessarily the beneficiaries of our own
behavior
the beneficiaries of behavior are in
many cases our genes the peacock
dragging his tail behind him might
actually prefer to be rid of it we might
expect the male Redback widow spider to
avoid indulging the cannibalistic urges
of his female mates but placing the
individual at the center of the action
in this way doesn't always give us the
complete picture modern evolutionary
theory sees the individual as merely an
actor performing a script that was not
of his or her writing a script written
in the language of genes if he pondered
this deeply it begins to make sense why
this has to be the case life originated
from replicating chemicals the
precursors of DNA and only after
millions of years do these chemicals
start to build structures around
themselves to form the precursors of
South's unicellular organisms became
multicellular tissues became organs
until we eventually ended up with
it's complete with brains and behavior
DNA clearly benefited from the
development of a body to encase it and a
brain to repeal it or these structures
wouldn't have evolved they would have
been out competed by brainless bodyless
organisms so our genes are here to
support us we are here to support our
genes
Cameron tune of perhaps to every human
being even the researchers at the heart
of the discovery sated this is a truth
which still fills me with astonishment
by Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins who
wrote the famous book The Selfish Gene
and the quote we are survival machines
robot vehicles blindly program to
preserve the selfish molecules known as
genes
the the gene is immortal in fact a
publisher once when I showed him the
first couple of chapters of The Selfish
Gene said you shouldn't call it that he
should call it the immortal gene and
perhaps I should have done genes are
immortal in the sense that the coded
information they contain is reproduced
is replicated with almost total fidelity
significantly not absolutely total
fidelity generation after generation
after generation such that there are
genes which are identical to what they
were tens of millions of years ago
hundreds of millions of years ago in a
few cases so genes are immortal not not
the DNA of course that's not that turns
over in a very short space of time but
the coded information is potentially
immortal and that means that the
difference between a successful gene and
an unsuccessful gene really matters it's
going to matter for millions of years so
the genes that make it through those
millions of years are the ones that are
good at it
and good at it means good at building
bodies good at controlling the processes
of embryology to make bodies which have
what it takes to preserve those genes
and pass them on and so I use this
phrase survival machine a body an
individual is a is a survival machine
and that's by far the most powerful way
of interpreting what an individual
organism is an individual organism is a
throwaway survival machine for the
self-replicating coded information which
it contains and the fate of that coded
information is crucially bound up with
the fate of the body in which it sits if
the body in which it sits dies before
reproducing then that coded information
is not going to go on the next
generation and the next and potentially
for tens of millions of years so the
genes that are in the world today
distributed as they are in bodies of
millions of
different different species are here
today because they were good at what
they did in the past they've come
through an in literally unbroken line of
successful ancestors where unsuccessful
non ancestors have been littered by the
by the by the wayside
and so the genes in a swallow or in a
kangaroo or in a hedgehog or in a human
all very very good at making swallows or
hedgehogs or kangaroos or or or humans
they had to be good at it or they
wouldn't have come through the
generations today now that I think is an
inspiring vision and that's what fired
me up about about the very idea of The
Selfish Gene in my in when I first read
Hamilton and then when I when I wrote it
down in my first in my lectures and then
and then in the inner self regime so the
idea the genesis of the idea comes in
the mid-60s from from Bill Hamilton and
then it big it sort of lies not not
ignored but not not really researched
further and then some people like Bob
Trevor's picks it up yes I mean it's
actually too bit to be fair I mean it's
it's inherent in the neo-darwinian
synthesis of the 1930s actually in in
Fisher and holding and and and Hamilton
particularly applied it to the problem
of the relationship between kin between
but but it wasn't only kin that inspired
me it was the the very idea of the
survival machine of of immortal genes
which goes back to the 1930s I think
Richard Dawkins wrote the famous book
The Selfish Gene and the quote we are
survival machines robot vehicles blindly
programmed to preserve the selfish
molecules known as genes it is said that
science has presented humans with
multiple blows to our sense of
self-importance Copernicus taught us
that the earth was not at the center of
the universe
Freud showed us that our instincts are
emotional and sexual rather than
rational and godly Darwin demonstrated
that we were descended not from angels
but from Apes to this we might add the
gene-centred view of life which shows
that in many cases we are not the final
beneficiary
of our own behavior we are here in
service to our genes for millennia
humans have been fascinated by the
natural world not just the complexities
of the organisms that populated but the
relationships that exist between
different species and how it all began
surely such a complex system could not
have arisen by accident surely this must
have somehow been designed created by
some all-powerful being the idea that
nature in all its complexity was created
all at once held sway for a long time
not just as religious doctrine but as a
true account of the origin of everything
debates about the scientific status of
creationism and intelligent design of
recently approached boiling point and in
the United States entered the courtroom
in December 2005 judged John Jones
ruled that intelligent design was not
science and therefore it is not
permissible to teach it as science in
the classroom
more recently the so-called new atheist
movement headed by Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins Sam Harris and the late
Christopher Hitchens have written
provocative and in some cases
inflammatory anti religious texts
however the purpose of bringing up
religion is not to ultimately bury it
but to show how many religions were
grappling with the same problems as many
scientists to understand where life came
from and what it means the ancient Greek
philosopher talus tried to explain the
origins of life in terms of natural as
opposed to supernatural terms he also
proposed that life evolved out of
simpler elements with the most basic
element from which all else ultimately
derived being water later another
ancient Greek and pedak Lee suggested
that in the beginning of the world it
was full of bodily organs which
occasionally came together and joined up
driven by the impelling force of love
the results of most of these unions were
monstrosity switch died out but a
minority were successful and went on to
reproduce producing copies of themselves
although we can clearly recognize this
being fanciful on that we now see love
as a human emotion rather than as a
impelling for some major impetus
mechanism has conspicuous similarities
to natural selection aristotle seemingly
killed off evolutionary thinking by
proposing that each species occupied a
particular space in a hierarchical
structure notice the great chain of
being in this scheme which was later
adopted by the christian religion god
occupied the topmost rung of the ladder
followed by angels
then the nobility males and females then
ordinary men ordinary women animals
plants and finally inanimate objects
moving from one rung to another was not
permitted which meant that there was a
natural order of things by fixing the
hierarchy in this way Aristotle's view
effectively closed down debate about
evolutionary change not only would any
opposing view be considered
theoretically incoherent but it was also
considered morally wrong to question the
way things should be much more recently
in 1798 the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant wrote in his work anthropology that
an orangutan or a chimpanzee may develop
the organs which serve for walking
grasping objects and speaking ensured
that he may evolve the structure of man
with an organ for the use of reason in
contradiction aristotle can't imagine
how one organism can change over time
perhaps acquiring the characteristics of
other organisms notice also that kant
does not merely refer to physical change
an organ for the use of reason is a
psychological faculty comp presaged
evolutionary psychology by two centuries
star one's own grandfather Erasmus
Darwin wrote that all living things
could have emerged from a common
ancestor which he called one living
filament he also suggested that
competition might be the driving force
behind evolution he saw this competition
occurring between different species that
within a species between members of the
same sex
in the laws of organic life he states
the final course of this contest of my
males seems to be that the strongest and
most active animals should propagate the
species which should thus be improved
although there are close similarities
between these ideas and Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution Erasmus failed to
produce a plausible mechanism for
evolution a contemporary of harassment
Darwin jean-baptiste Lamarck proposed
just such a mechanism to account for
change Lamarck's first law suggested
that changes in the environment can lead
to changes in an animal's behavior which
might cause an organ to be used more or
less the second law was that such
changes are heritable taken together
these laws prescribed an organisms
continuous gradual change as a result of
the interaction between the organisms
needs and the environment most
evolutionary biologists agree that the
inheritance of acquired characteristics
as the Marx theory has since been called
is incorrect
although the environment can indeed
affect bodily organs for example
increased exercise could increase the
capacity of the heart and lungs
such changes cannot be passed on to the
organisms offspring natural selection
depends on two components the component
of heritable variation means that
individuals within a population tend to
differ from each other in ways that are
passed on to their offspring and the
second component differential
reproduction means that as a result of
these differences some individuals leave
more surviving offspring than others the
overwhelming majority of asexual
offspring will be identical to the
parent but a few will be different in
some way due to errors in the copying
process should these different offspring
survive and reproduce then the majority
of their offspring will be identical to
them and the process repeats itself
however copying error seldom have
positive consequences on very rare
occasions however an error might produce
an organism that is actually better
fitted to the environment and this
individual
will tend to produce more offspring and
the error will soon become the norm in
some cases the new lineage might
out-compete the old and come to replace
it
sexually reproducing species on the
other hand combine the genes of two
parents during reproduction meaning that
offspring will always be different from
either parent the increased variation
produced by sexual reproduction is
thought to be one of the reasons why sex
evolved in the first place it provided
an extra mechanism for variation
effectively accelerating evolution
Darwin knew nothing about genetics and
for good reason at the time of Darwin's
death no one on earth knew about
genetics except for the Austrian monk
Gregor Mendel between 1858 in 1875
Mendel conducted a series of breeding
experiments on hybrid pea plants in the
garden of his monastery one of Mendel's
greatest insights was that inheritance
was particulate Darwin assumed that the
traits of an individual were some sort
of blend of the traits of the mother and
father as might happen when mixing
paints but Mendel demonstrated that the
blending model is incorrect he found
that if two people ants were crossed
when having white flowers and one having
red flowers the offspring would be
either red or would never pink as might
be expected if the two traits blended
the reason why some traits such as
height or skin color seem to blend is
because they are controlled by more than
one gene for traits controlled by single
genes inheritance is always particulate
there are were rumors that Darwin
possessed a copy of the journal
containing Mendel's article experiments
in plant hybridization but no copy was
found in Darwin's extensive library
generally the scientific community was
rather slow to realize the significance
of Mendel's ideas so biology had to wait
until the 20th century before Mendel's
work was rediscovered although most of
Darwin's examples in the Origin of
Species concern physical traits he also
believed that natural selection had
enrolled
play in the evolution of behavior Darwin
is thought to have seen the human mind
is being explainable by the same
physical laws as other bodily organs
Darwinian evolution and mechanistic view
led to materialism which is the approach
adopted by modern cognitive psychology
it sees the mind as being ultimately
reducible to the activity of the brain
or as Steven Pinker puts it the mind is
the information processing activity of
the brain the brain being a physical
organ is subject to the pressures of
natural selection therefore the mind and
hence behavior is at some level the
product of evolution by natural
selection Darwin's cousin Francis Galton
was highly influenced by the theory of
natural selection in his own words the
publication in 1859 of the Origin of
Species by Charles Darwin made a market
epic in my own mental development as it
did in that of human thought generally
its effect was to demolish a multitude
of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke
and to arouse a spirit of rebellion
against all ancient authorities whose
positive and unauthenticated statements
were contradicted by modern science
Dalton was a very important figure in
the history of psychology he proposed
that character and intelligence were
inherited traits and developed some of
the first intelligence tests to explore
these issues he was in many respects the
father of what is now known as psycho
metrics he also anticipated the method
of experimental psychology by
emphasizing the need to use quantitative
data for large samples of individuals
Dalton also proposed that traits that
may have been useful in ancestral times
might be less useful in contemporary
society for instance he suggested that
during ancestral times evolution and
favored humans were group minded organ
garius in God's time greater emphasis
was placed upon self-reliance so Gregg
area sness might be less desirable more
controversial was Galton's attempt to
suggest that those individuals whose
traits might benefit society like
innovators the highly intelligent or
otherwise talented
be encouraged to produce many offspring
then those whose traits are seen as less
desirable be discouraged from
reproducing a controversial program they
called eugenics the word eugenics coined
by Francis Galton comes from the Greek
word Eugenie's meaning well born it was
developed as a method of trying to
dictate who breathes with whom and in
extreme cases who doesn't breed at all
his ideas expressed in the lengthy quote
to the right when Galton found the
eugenics Education Society in 1907 the
goal was to improve the human species by
a positive means if a twentieth part of
the cost and pains were spent in
measures for the improvement of the
human race that is spent on the
improvement of the breed of horses and
cattle what a galaxy of genius might we
not create we might introduce profits
and high priests of civilization into
the world as surely as we can propagate
idiots by mating creedy's men and women
of the present day are to those we might
hope to bring into existence what the
pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern
town are to our own highly bred
varieties the idea was also Greek in the
Republic Plato proposed that although
friendships between the sexes should be
permitted procreation should be
controlled by the government with the
aim of breeding a better society there
are two forms of eugenics often called
positive negative positive eugenics
operates by encouraging people with high
Fitness to mate together and produce
mini offspring the word Fitness here can
be treated as meaning possessing
characteristics which are thought to be
good for society negative eugenics on
the other hand attempts to curtail or
prohibit reproduction among those who
are considered unfit this form of
eugenics is Anathem out of most people
Charles Darwin's son major Leonard
Darwin took over the eugenics society
from Gulman and stated the transition
from positive to negative eugenics he
proposed that a policy of segregation
should be implemented whereby
the fit were separated from the unfit
compulsion is now permitted if applying
to criminals lunatics and mental
defectives and this principle must be
extended to all who I having offspring
would seriously damage future
generations in the early part of the
20th century hundreds of thousands of
people were sterilized worldwide on the
grounds that they were deemed
psychologically unfit in the United
States alone it was reported that by
1960 almost 60,000 individuals had
undergone involuntary sterilization the
largest and most systematic program of
eugenics occurred in Nazi Germany
beginning with segregation and
sterilization and finishing with a
systematic slaughter of millions Hitler
tried to ensure that the genes of the
unfit especially Jews but many others as
well wouldn't make it to the next
generation perhaps many eugenicist
probably felt that they had humanity's
best interests at heart
however today those would probably feel
that even positive eugenics with its
attempt to coerce or interfere with an
individual's freedom of choice of sexual
partner as an infringement of civil
liberties and therefore abhorrent let's
explore a story related to these issues
you keep your workstation so clean
Jerome it's next to godliness isn't that
what they say god I reviewed your flight
plan not one error keystrokes mom it's
right someone like you was taking us to
Titan has the committee approved the
mission there's been talk of delay you
shouldn't listen to talk you leave in a
week you've got a substance test
congratulations Jerome
thank you
the most unremarkable of events Jerome
Morrow navigator first class is about to
embark on the one-year manned mission to
Titan 14th moon of Saturn highly
prestigious assignment although for
Jerome selection was virtually
guaranteed at birth he's blessed with
all the gifts required for such an
undertaking a genetic quotient second to
none no there is truly nothing
remarkable about the progress of Jerome
Morrow except that I am NOT Jerome
morrow
I was conceived in the Riviera not the
French Riviera
the Detroit variety
they used to say that a child conceived
in love has a greater chance of
happiness they don't say that anymore
I'll never understand what possessed my
mother to put her faith in God's hands
rather than those of her local
geneticist 10 fingers 10 toes that's all
that used to matter not now
now only seconds old the exact time and
cause of my death was already known
neurological condition 60% probability
manic depression 42 percent probability
attention deficit disorder 89 percent
probability heart disorder 99 percent
probability
early fatal potential life expectancy 30
point 2 years
the name for the certificate and no
Vincent Anton it's a good name
from an early age I came to think of
myself as others thought of me
chronically ill every skinned knee and
runny nose was treated as if it were
life-threatening I'm sorry the insurance
won't cover it if he fell but I was told
everything I really wish there was
something I could do like most other
parents of their day they were
determined that their next child would
be brought into the world and what has
become natural to very healthy girls
naturally no critical predispositions to
any of the major inheritable diseases
all that remains is to select the most
compatible candidate first we may as one
aside on gender have you given it any
thought we would want Vincent to have a
brother you know to play with of course
you would hello Vincent
you have specified hazel eyes dog hair
fair I have taken the liberty of
eradicating any potentially prejudicial
conditions premature baldness myopia
alcoholism and addictive susceptibility
propensity for violence obesity and said
we didn't want
I mean diseases yes but right we were
just wondering if if it's good to just
leave a few things to chance you want to
give your child the best possible start
believe me we have enough imperfection
built in already your child doesn't need any additional burdens
and keep in mind this child is still you simply the best
of you you could conceive naturally a
thousand times and never get such a
result
Ponder this. currently there is
controversy about the role of genetic
engineering determining human traits it
is already possible to screen fetuses
for genetic disorders and soon it will
be possible to replace defective genes
to produce a healthy infant some worry
that genes might be replaced that are
not medically deficient nearly
undesirable if or possible to detect
genes that influence criminality or
antisocial personality would it be
ethical to change such genes for the
common good would it be morally right to
genetically manipulate genes for
intelligence or a good looks the
eugenics controversy has cast a shadow
over the use of Darwinian theory in
explaining human behavior it has been
all too easy for all evolutionary
theories to be dismissed and inherently
racist supremacist or otherwise
politically incorrect this is
unfortunate because the Darwinian
thinking could well prove to be the
framework that unites the social
sciences in the same way that it unified
the disparate areas of biology in the
early part of the last century the fact
that we do not like the implications of
a particular theory does not affect its
truth on the other hand it would be a
mistake to think that science exists in
a vacuum and it is incumbent on all of
us to guard against those who might wish
to use the results of science for their
own political ends William James is one
of the most influential psychologist of
all time he made the distinction between
short and long term memory still used to
this day by modern cognitive
psychologists James had a keen interest
in the nature of consciousness and was
very much interested in applying
Darwin's ideas to human psychology in
particular he outlined instincts such as
fear love and curiosity as driving
forces of human behavior and commented
on the misconception that nothing is
commoner than the remark that man
differs from the lower creatures by the
almost total lack of instincts and the
assumption of their work by reason he
went on to add that human behavior might
be characterized by more
stakes than other animals rather than
fewer an idea that has been embraced by
modern evolutionary psychologists such
as john tooby and leda cosmides whole
systems of psychology have been founded
on this assumption the concept of
instinct was dropped from some social
scientists terminology in the 20th
century partly because it was considered
too imprecise of term to be
scientifically meaningful a new approach
to the social scientists denied their
existence and saw culture rather than
biology as being the principal
determiner of human behavior further
stating that many so-called instinctive
behaviors are capable of being modified
by experience so it is difficult to see
where an instinct finishes and learning
begins
