Challenges in Behavioral Reductionism for Evolutionary Psychology - Essay Example

? Challenges in Behavioral Reductionism for Evolutionary Psychology The concept of Evolutionary Psychology is an expansive outgrowth of original Darwinian models through a premise of behavioral reductionism. That premise is a guiding theory that can be said to influence other theoretical interpretations. A metatheory, if you will that shapes observations into a broader framework. (Lloyd, 1979) This, in theory, should guard against the insinuation of certain systematic errors in the processing of results, or conclusions. (Newell, 1990) At its root, a crucial goal is the framing of behaviors that might seem destructive or inscrutable, and elucidating the context by which virtually any behavioral pattern becomes, in some instances a necessity. Jealous rages, for instance can easily be justified as a means to protect reproductive access and ensure that your own resources only go to your own offspring; protecting your own investment. (Buss, 2000), (Downes, 2001) Many anti-social behaviors can be justified in the interest of mere individial prosperity in a world of nature 'red in tooth and claw' as it were. Base survival for one organism is not sufficient for long-term evolutionary success. Those that most influence future generations genetically would then exhibit behavioral mechanisms that encourage efficient transmission of their genes, and maximize survival of offspring; which often means, in a context of limited resources hostility against one's own kind.Extremes of this behavior can be found in species ranging from polar bears to mice, where death of newborns at the hands of competing males is instinctual, so that one's own offspring have priority access to the resources of survival. (Derocher, et al. 1999) But in contrast, any discussion of evolutionary psychology and its reductionary behavioral 2 implications would of course be incomplete without a discussion concerning altruism. Altruistic behaviors can find many justifications for communal species, including herd/flock animals and social insects. Assisting in the survival of the group will help one's fellows to survive; should that trait become established in the population it will foster a social structure that permits the survival of more members. Should multiple instances of a social-altruist trait become extant in the population, each instance should create a compounded likelihood of preserving itself. But that is the difficulty; getting multiple instances of that trait at the same time. In the long-run, the premise of advantage via co-survival appears supportable. But one must ask the question, if a wildebeast evolves with a strong instinct to protect others of its herd, that trait might not become extant in the population because such an organism would logically protect other members regardless of whether they share his altrusitic feelings; thereby a gene that triggers that behavior could also be beneficial to organisms which lack that gene. Which would seem to work against its own self-perpetuation. In large populations that lack altruism that outcome seems much more probable, that the lonely, good-samaritan organism must help his uncaring fellows, while at the same time still competing with them for food and mates. It may benefit the herd, but will be a detriment to that individual. It is easy then, to understand herd-animals that do not necessarily respond with any altrusitic tendencies that would put themselves at risk. Yes, swimming in a school makes it more difficult for a shark to focus on a single fish; but no member of that school will put itself at risk to try and coax a fellow out of a hazard, or confront a predator. When the lion approaches, all gazelles will run, although, if they were each to attack in mass, it is probable they could kill a single lion; yet there would be no individual advantage for the gazelle that first manifests genes encouraging that trait. He would most likely become the one that was eaten before he could reproductively spread his valor to the rest of the population. What is needed then, in that case is a population bottleneck whereby those carrying an altruism 3 trait are given the chance to replenish the herd. That would allow multiple copies of the gene to manifest in the herd, and thereby allow the members to support one another. How then, do we explain the leap that occurs between flocking but uncaring animals, and the social constructs of humans? Among humans, and presumably hominids the cognitive capacity that makes gratitude possible could also become a contributing factor. An individual altruistic enough to bring back food and share with the tribe could then earn support from others, in the form of social acceptance, defense, or sexual access. (Kaplan et al. 1990) While not necessarily inevitable, it is almost certainly a capability for any creature that can attain the necessary cognitvie threshold. Even if a fish had nice feelings for another fish, it is likely incapable of comprehending that helping others could benefit itself. A minimum level of both self - and social awareness would be required. Human evolution in general is informed by the meta-theory that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and social structures was the longest single period in the history of our species. Earlier, hominid forms would have been entirely dependent on this social structure, the tribal band evolving even as the hominids were themselves shaped by the lifestyle's demands. In this context we have the necessary ingredients needed to encourage altruistic behavioral forms. Small bands of probably less than fifty members allow ample opportunities for population bottlenecking; any deviation in environment, as it pertains to food supply, or violent incidents that might include both natural disasters and predation could radically alter the band's composition. Random environmental variance then, would permit the expression of genes that might lead to communally beneficial traits, because these genes will have more opportunities for replication due to the removal of competition. Thereby permitting traits that have secondary benefits, not solely limited to a single individual. In addition, the primate brain, even in an ancestral state is more than complex enough to comprehend reciprocity of favors between individuals. A gene or genetic combination that permits 4 empathy, combined with the awareness that other individuals can be helpful if one helps them becomes the kindling that spreads into a developed familial and tribal structure. Beyond this point, limitations, or perhapse regressions become apparent in the ability of evolutionary psychology to definitively predict more complex urban and political social behaviors. A breakdown of social norms occurs when the band becomes too large. Should humans continue to prosper, a point will be reached where one finds himself with no familial ties to other people sharing the same language and culture. These others, though they appear like ourselves, could be injured or killed with no appreciable consequences to our own lives - to a point. The point at which harm to those outside our immediate social circle can elicit consequences provides the impetus for the development of political systems, to bridge the gap of familiarity, to create a social order most beneficial to the most influential population segments. (Not necessarily the largest) As sociobiology and evolutionary psychology primarily give us tools to explain the growth of human reason as a problem-solving tool for social interactions at the tribal level, beyond that there are uncertainties. (Cosmides et al 1992) Why don't homeless individuals share their liquor supplies with others in the same alleyway? (Cosmides et al 1992) Above the level of the tribal band, there appears to be a reversion of behavior back to a lone-wolf, every polar bear for himself individual self-interest. However, pure reason tells us that our own situation would be improved if all men felt towards one another as if we were all part of the same family-band. Under such circumstances, war and crime would seem nearly impossible. Yet mankind is irrevocably shaped by the demands of tribal survival, and our present natures do not permit us to effectively extend altruism to eliminate violence and exploitation in toto across the species. It is simply a matter of not wanting to be that first gazelle that attacks the lion. (And gets eaten) Until we can somehow emotionally incorporate all humanity into an empathic collective, each 'island' of social interconnectivity will itself become a selfish organism that can seek profit at the 5 expense of others. References Buss, D.M.: 2000. The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is Necessary As Love and Sex, Free Press, New York. Cosmides, Leda. Tooby, John. 1992. Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Derocher, AE and Wiig, Oe; 1999 Infanticide and Cannibalism of Juvenile Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Svalbard Arctic [Arctic]. Vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 307–310. Sep 1999 Downes, Stephen M. 2001. Some Recent Developments in Evolutionary Approaches to the Study of Human Cognition and Behavior. Biology and Philosophy 16: 575-595, 2001.Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kaplan. H., Hill. K., & Hurtado. A. M. (1990). Risk, foraging and food sharing among the Ache. In E. Cashdan (Ed.), Risk and uncertainty in tribal and pensant economies. Boulder: westview Pml. Lloyd, J.E. 1979. Mating behavior and natural selection. The Florida Entomologist, 62, 17-34. Newell, A. 1990. Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Read More