Evolutionary Explanations of Behavior

Some people are pretty hostile to evolutionary explanations of human behavior. So why should we believe them, or not? The most obvious reason to believe that some human behavioral tendencies are written in our genes comes from the fact that we that those of other animals are. There is also the fact that some behaviors are universal or nearly universal and seem to arise spontaneously in groups of people when they aren't provided by the wider culture. It's pretty obvious, though, that the cultural matrix we find ourselves in does have a big influence on human behavior, and that there is a wide range of behaviors among individuals and between cultures. It's clearly not viable to attribute all human behavior to instinct or all differences in behavior to genetic or other biological differences.

One good but surprising example of a behavior that has clear genetic roots is language. We don't all speak the same language, and the language(s) we learn are those we are immersed in as children, so how can I claim that language is an instinct? The best reason is the evidence of some remarkable natural experiments. The one I find most persuasive is the experience of deaf children who were housed together in a school, without access to either external deaf languages nor the language of speech, who showed up at school with only a few primitive and idiosyncratic (not mutually intelligible) gestures learned from their parents and spontaneously constructed a full featured and gramatically sophisticated sign language on their own. Other examples come from the creation of creoles. People of diverse linguistic backgrounds coming together will communicate with each other in primitive pidgins - small vocabularies with hardly any grammatic structure, but their children will make those into a full-featured and grammatical creole - a real language.

The lesson is very clear - if children don't have a language, or lack mutually intelligible languages, they create them from scratch or whastever pieces that are lying around, even if they can't hear. That instinct is clearly very flexible. The languages created will be original creation, differing in every surface detail of sound pattern or gesture and even many grammatical aspects, but they will be powerfully expressive and have a core of deep grammatical stucture. It should be expected that other human social instincts should be similarly flexible and adaptible to circumstance.

So when should a behavior be suspected of being genetic? Universality or widespread commonality is the first clue. Behaviors that we share with our close animal cousins are another hot candidate. When we look at individual as opposed to group behaviors, behaviors that run in families are good candidates t. These are not ironclad guarantees, of course, but then we must consider alternative explanations. Are there any? Do they stand up to scrutiny?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more