The biological goal of the human mind

-----Original Message-----
>Behalf Of John Till

>In the real world, we are a long way from knowing whether sociobiology has
>much to offer. It seems to have some value for looking at simple

-----------------

Actually, evolutionary psychology, molecular biology, and behavioral
genetics have gone a long way towards explaining human behavior.   This
should not be surprising because we have known that genes drive behavior for
over 400 years:

"In 1576, the earliest English-language book on dogs classified
breeds primarily on the basis of behavior. For example, terriers
were bred to creep into burrows to drive out small animals.
Behavioral classification of dogs continues today." [ pp. 58-59.
BEHAVIORAL GENETICS: Third Edition, Plomin et al; Freeman, 1997]

The biological goal (thought to be about 50% to 80% of behavior) of the
human mind is simply to reproduce the genes that created it. To ascribe any
other innate "goals" to human behavior is to enter the domain of
"metaphysics".

For those who are interested in understanding human behavior, here are a few
good references:

"The emerging science of molecular biology has made startling discoveries
that show beyond a doubt that genes are the single most important factor
that distinguishes one person from another. We come in large part ready-made
>from the factory. We accept that we look like our parents and other blood
relatives; we have a harder time with the idea that we also act like them.
In other species, we value and encourage genetic differences in
'personality.' Consider the difference between a Wisconsin dairy cow and a
bull from Pamplona, or a golden retriever and a pit bull. Human breeding is
less orderly, but children do share personality traits with their parents.
Every grown man has experienced a shock of realization when he does
something exactly like his father before him. Every mother has a similar
experience when a child behaves exactly like her. This is not bad; it's
beautiful. This does not mean we are doomed to become our parents; it means
we begin our journeys where our parents left off." [pp. 11,12, LIVING WITH
OUR GENES: Why They Matter More Than You Think, by Dean Homer & Peter
Copeland; Doubleday, 1988 ]
==============

"[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative
account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current)
opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message - like
being told that one's fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we
tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment."
[  Robert E. Lane, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Yale
University, and Past President, American Political Science Association,
commenting on DARWINISM, DOMINANCE, AND DEMOCRACY: The Biological Bases of
Authoritarianism, by Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson; Review at
http://info.greenwood.com/books/0275958/0275958175.html ]
==============

INCOMPATIBILITY OF EVOLUTIONARY AND NONEVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS

Must evolutionary and nonevolutionary explanations make different
predictions? To answer this question consider two sets of explanations. The
first set contains explanations that were explicitly constructed with
evolutionary theory in mind. The second set contains explanations that were
developed without any explicit knowledge of evolutionary theory. However,
some of these latter explanations, such as commonsense explanations like,
"Blood is thicker than water," and, "It is a wise father that knows his own
child," are compatible with evolutionary theory, although they were devised
without knowledge of it. Other members of this second set, such as those
designed to explain true altruism, where fitness costs outweigh benefits,
are incompatible with the logic of evolution by natural selection. Thus, the
greater set of all explanations that are compatible with evolutionary theory
includes all of Set I and some overlap from Set 2.

Explanations that are not compatible with evolutionary theory can be thought
of as "warp drive" explanations because warp drive is what the crew of the
Starship Enterprise use when they wish to violate Einstein's theory of
relativity to travel faster than the speed of light. Developing explanations
of physical phenomena that violate Einstein's theory of relativity is risky,
as is developing explanations about behavior that violate Darwin's theory of
evolution by natural selection. Hence, it is likely that any good
explanation of behavior will be compatible with an evolutionary explanation,
even if it were not explicitly developed from an evolutionary perspective.
Although a good explanation of behavior need not have been explicitly
constructed from an evolutionary perspective, the contributors to this
volume are committed to the proposition that an explicit consideration of
evolutionary theory will improve the quality of explanations of human
behavior.

Why do they believe this? First, explicit evolutionary thinking can
sometimes eliminate certain kinds of errors in thinking about behavior
(Symons, 1987). For example, it has been seen that explanations that
implicitly assume organisms have evolved to act for the good of their group
or species should be treated with considerable skepticism. In addition, use
of the theory can sometimes help prevent one from making and accepting
moralistic fallacies--where one assumes that what ought to be actually is.
Consider some examples. Stepparents ought to treat their natural and
stepchildren equally. However, when Daly and Wilson (1980) applied
evolutionary thinking to the problem of child abuse, they found that
stepparents were a major source of abuse. There ought not to be conflict
within families, but Trivers (1974) has used evolutionary theory to help us
understand the within-family conflict that has perplexed us for generations.
Recently, Haig (1993) argued for the occurrence of mother-offspring conflict
during gestation. Men and women ought to have the same intellectual
abilities, but Silverman and Eals (1992) have been able to use evolutionary
thinking to predict and explain gender differences in some perceptual
abilities. A rigorous application of evolutionary theory may help us
identify and deal with other oughts that contradict reality.

Second, because the theory of evolution explains the evolution of all life
forms, concepts developed when using it are likely to be very general.
Kinship theory (Hamilton, 1964), parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972),
sexual-selection theory (Darwin, 1871/1898), and reciprocity theory
(Trivers, 1971), for example, have been used to explain behavior in a great
many species of animals. For many, it is intellectually satisfying to use
the same theoretical framework, such as kin selection, to help explain
sterile castes in worker bees, wasps, and ants (Hamilton, 1964); alarm
calling in ground squirrels (Sherman, 1977); helping at the nest in jays
(Woolfenden & Fitzpatrick, 1984); suicide in humans (de Catanzaro, 1991);
the naming of natural and adoptive children (Johnson, McAndrew, & Harris,
1991); mortality and risk during a crisis year (McCullough & Barton, 1991);
genetic relatedness, the biological importance of a decision, and decision
rules (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994); village fissioning among
hunter-gatherers (Chagnon & Irons, 1979); and whom new babies are said to
resemble (Daly & Wilson, 1982).

Third, and most important, the theory of evolution can be used to help
scholars and scientists develop substantive testable predictions about human
behavior. Cosmides (1989) used it to make predictions about content effects
in logical reasoning. Silverman and Eals (1992) used it to make predictions
about gender differences in spatial abilities. Singh (1993) used it to make
predictions about preferences for body images. Buss (1994) used it to make
predictions about gender differences in mate choice criteria and tactics for
acquiring mates. Orians and Heerwagen (1992) used it to make predictions
about evoked responses to landscapes. Several chapters in Part III of this
book discuss recent research in which various aspects of evolutionary theory
were used to derive testable predictions about human behavior.
[pp. 8-10, HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY:
Ideas Issues and Applications, Eds. Charles Crawford & Dennis Krebs;
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998 http://www.erlbaum.com/2621.htm

Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm