The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology - Konrad Lorenz Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Scott AtranLittle by little, biologists were able to deliver onDARWIN’s promises. This process has speeded up considerably—almostirreversibly—thanks to access atthe molecular level. There is still a long way to go.Through recent advances in cognitive science, evolutionarypsychology has gained entrance to mentalstructure, and so potentially to the brain’s evolvedneural architecture. It has an even longer way ahead:much less is currently known about how the mind/brain works than how body cells function. Perhaps,in the end, evolutionary psychology’s interpretationsof complex mental designs as telltale signs ofancient environments will prove no truer than phrenology’sreadings of bumps and other conformationsof the skull as indications of mental facultiesand character (phrenology was a very serious andhotly debated discipline a century ago). Then againperhaps not, which makes the effort worthwhile.Note1 Although the adaptive relationship of structure to functionis often manifest, as with the giraffe’s neck or the rhinocerus’shorns, often it is not. In such cases, evolutionary theoristsadopt a strategy of ‘reverse engineering’. Reverseengineering is what military analysts do when a weaponfrom an enemy or competitor in the arms market falls intotheir hands and they try to figure out exactly how it wasput together and what it can do. Reverse engineering iseasiest, of course, if the structure contains some signatureof its function, like trying to figure out what a toaster doesgiven the telltale sign of toasted bread crumbs left inside.But in many cases recognizing the appropriate signs alreadyrequires some prior notion of what function the structuremay have served. Thus, after a century and a half of debate,it is only now that scientists clearly favor the hypothesisthat bipedality was primarily selected to enhance field ofview. Comparative studies of humans with bipedal birdsand dinosaurs, as well as experiments comparing energyexpenditure and running speed in two-footed versus fourfootedrunning and walking, appear to exclude the competinghypotheses that bipedality evolved for running or energyconservation. For most higher-order human cognitivefaculties, however, there may be little useful comparativeevidence from elsewhere in the animal kingdom. This isbecause of their apparent structural novelty, poor representationin the fossil record (e.g., stone tools tell little of languaeor theory of mind) and lack of surviving intermediateforms. The moral is that reverse engineering can be helpful,and occasionally successful, but success is by no meansguaranteed even in the richest of evidentiary contexts.ReferencesAiello, L./Wheeler, P. (1995) The expensive-tissue hypothesis.Current Anthropology 36:199–221.Alexander, R. (1989) Evolution of the human psyche. In:Stringer, C. (ed) The human revolution. The University ofEdinburgh Press: Edinburgh.Atran, S. (1987) Ordinary constraints on the semantics of livingkinds: A commonsense alternative to recent treatmentsof natural-object terms. Mind and Language 2: 27–63.Atran, S. (1989) Basic conceptual domains. Mind and Language4: 7–16.Atran, S. (1990) Cognitive foundations of natural history: Towardsan anthropology of science. Cambridge UniversityPress: Cambridge.Atran, S. (1998) Folkbiology and the anthropology of science:Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioraland Brain Sciences 21: 547–609.Atran, S. (1999) Itzaj Maya folk-biological taxonomy. In: Medin,D./Atran, S. (eds) Folk biology. MIT Press: CambridgeMA.Atran, S./Estin, P./Coley, J./Medin, D. (1997) Generic speciesand basic levels: Essence and appearance in folk biology.Journal of Ethnobiology 17: 22–45.Atran, S./Medin, D./Lynch, E./Vapnarsky, V./Ucan Ek’, E./Sousa, P. (2001) Folkbiology doesn’t come from folkpsychology:Evidence from Yukatek Maya in cross-culturalperspective. Journal of Cognition and Culture 1: 3–42.Atran, S. (in press) In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscapeof religion. Oxford University Press: New York.Atran, S./Sperber, D. (1991) Learning without teaching: Itsplace in culture. In: Tolchinsky-Landsmann, L. (ed) Culture,schooling and psychological development. Ablex:Norwood NJ.Barrett, J./Nyhof, M. (2001) Spreading non-natural concepts:The role of intuitive conceptual structures in memory andtransmission of cultural materials. Journal of Cognitionand Culture 1: 69–100.Baron-Cohen, S. (1995) Mindblindness. The MIT Press: CambridgeMA.Berlin, B./Breedlove, D.,/Raven, P. (1973) General principlesof classification and nomenclature in folk biology. AmericanAnthropologist 74: 214–242.Berlin, B. (1992) Ethnobiological classification. PrincetonUniversity: Princeton.Blackmore, S. (1999) The meme machine. Oxford UniversityPress: Oxford.Boyer, P. (1994) The naturalness of religious ideas. Universityof California Press: Berkeley.Brown, D./Boysen, S. (in press) Spontaneous discriminationof natural stimuli by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journalof Comparative Psychology.Buss, D. (1999) Evolutionary psychology. Allyn & Bacon:Boston.Carey, S. (1985) Constraints on semantic development. In:Mehler, J./Fox, R. (eds) Neonate cognition. Erlbaum: HillsdaleNJ.Carey, S./Spelke, E. (1994) Domain-specific knowledge andconceptual change. In: Hirschfeld, L./Gelman, S. (eds)Mapping the mind. Cambridge University Press: NewYork.Cerella, J. (1979) Visual classes and natural categories in thepigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human perceptionand performance 5: 68–77.Chomsky, N. (1982) Lectures on government and binding.Evolution and Cognition ❘ 54 ❘ 2001, Vol. 7, No. 1
The Case for Modularity: Sin or Salvation?Foris Publications: Dordrecht.Chomsky, N. (1988) Language and problems of knowledge.MIT Press: Cambridge MA.Chomsky, N. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In:Martin, R./Michaels, D./Uriagereka, J. (eds) Step by step.MIT Press: Cambridge MA.Coley, J./Medin, D./Atran, S. (1997) Does rank have its privilege?Inductive inferences in folkbiological taxonomies.Cognition 63: 73–112.Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and thehuman brain. Avon Books: New York.Darwin, C. (1883) On the origins of species by means of naturalselection. 6th edition. Appleton: New York. Originallypublished 1872.Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution andthe meaning of life. Simon and Schuster: New York.Eldredge, N. (1986) Information, economics, and evolution.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17: 351–369.Fodor, J. (1998) The trouble with psychological Darwinism.London Review of Books 20(2). Retrieved from the WWW:http://www.lrb.co.uk./v20n02/fodo2002.htmlGelman, S./Wellman, H. (1991) Insides and essences. Cognition38: 214–244.Gil-White, F. (2001) Are ethnic groups biological “species” tothe brain? Current Anthropology 42(4).Gould, S. (1991) Exaptation: A crucial tool for evolutionarypsychology. Journal of Social Issues 47: 43–46.Gould, S. (1997) The exaptive excellence of spandrels as aterm and prototype. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences USA 94: 10750–10755.Gould, S./Lewontin, R. (1979) the spandrels of San marcoand the Panglossian paradigm. Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of London B. 205: 581–598.Griffiths, P. (1997) What emotions really are. University ofChicago Press: Chicago.Harris, M. (1975) Culture, people, nature: An introduction togeneral anthropology. 2nd edition. Thomas Crowell: NewYork.Hatano, G./Inagaki, K. (1999) A developmental perspectiveon informal biology. In: Medin, D./Atran, S. (eds) Folk biology.MIT Press: Cambridge MA.Hauser, M. (2000) What animals really think. Henry Holt &Company: New York.Herrnstein, R. (1984) Objects, categories, and discriminativestimuli. In: Roitblat, H. (ed) Animal cognition. Erlbaum:Hillsdale NJ.Hill, K. (1999) Evolution of the human life course. Paper presentedto The Evolution and Human Adaptation Program,Institute for Social Research. The University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, February 9, 1999.Hirschfeld, L. (1996) Race in the making. MIT Press: CambridgeMA.Hubel, D. (1988) Eye, brain, and vision. Scientific American:New York.Jerison, H. (1976) The paleoneurology of language. In: Harnad,S./Steklis, H./Lancaster, J. (eds.) Origins and evolutionof language and speech. Annals of the New York Academyof Sciences 280: 370–382.Job, R./Surian, L. (1998) A neurocognitive mechanism forfolk biology? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 577–578.Johnson, S./Carey, S. (1998) Knowledge enrichment andconceptual change in folkbiology: Evidence from peoplewith Williams Syndrome. Cognitive Psychology 37: 156–200.Keil, F. (1989) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development.MIT Press: Cambridge MA.Keil, F. (1994) The birth and nuturance of concepts by domains.In: Hirschfeld, L./Gelman, S. (eds.) Mapping themind. Cambridge University Press: New York.LeDoux, J. (1996) The emotional brain. Simon and Schuster:New York.López, A./Atran, S./Coley, J./Medin, D.,/Smith, E. (1997)The tree of life: Universals of folk-biological taxonomiesand inductions. Cognitive Psychology 32: 251–295.Laland, K./Olding-Smee, J./Feldman, M. (2000) Niche construction,biological evolution and cultural change. Behavioraland Brain Sciences 23: 131–146.Leslie, A. (1994) ToMM, ToBy, and agency. In: Hirschfeld, L./Gelman, S. (eds) Mapping the mind: Domain-specificity incognition and culture. Cambridge University Press: NewYork.Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963) The bear and the barber. The Journalof the Royal Anthropological Institute 93: 1–11.Lorenz, K. (1966) The role of gestalt perception in animal andhuman behavior. In: White, L. (ed) Aspects of form. IndianaUniversity Press: Bloomington.MacLean, P. (1990) The triurne brain in evolution. PlenumPress: New York.Marr, D. (1982) Vision. W. H. Freeman: New York.Medin, D./Lynch, E./Coley, J./Atran, S. (1997) Categorizationand reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead toRome? Cognitive Psychology 32: 49–96.Miller, G. (2000) The mating mind: How sexual choiceshaped the evolution of human nature. Doubleday Books:New York.Nesse, R./Lloyd, A. (1992) The evolution of psychodynamicmechanisms. In. Barkow, J./Cosmides, L./Tooby, J. (eds)The adapted mind. Oxford University Press: New York.Panksepp, J./Panksepp, J.B. (2000) The seven sins of evolutionarypsychology. Evolution and Cognition 6(2): 108–131.Pinker, S./Bloom, P. (1990) Natural language and natural selection.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–727.Rosch, E./Mervis, C./Grey, W./Johnson, D.,/Boyes-Braem, P.(1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology8: 382–439.Sartori, G./Job, R. (1988) The oyster with four legs: A neuropsychologicalstudy on the interaction of semantic and visualinformation. Cognitive Neuropsychology 5: 105–132.Shanker, S. (2001) What a child knows when she knows whata name is: The non-Cartesian view of language acquisition.Current Anthropology 42(4).Spelke, E./Phillips, A./Woodward, A. (1995) Infants’ knowledgeof object motion and human action. In: Sperber, D./Premack, D./Premack, A. (eds) Causal cognition: A multidisciplinarydebate. Clarendon Press: Oxford.Sperber, D. (1985) Anthropology and psychology: Towardsan epidemiology of representations. Man 20: 73–89.Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach.Blackwell: Oxford.Thornhill, R./Palmer, C. (2000) A natural history of rape. MITPress: Cambridge MA.Waddington, C. (1959) Canalisation of development and theinheritance of acquired characteristics. Nature 183: 1654–1655.Wallace, A. (1901) Darwinism. Macmillan: New York. Originallypublished 1889.Warrington, E./Shallice, T. (1984) Category specific impairments.Brain 107: 829–854.Williams, G. (1992) Natural selection: Domains, levels andchallenges. Oxford University Press: New York.Evolution and Cognition ❘ 55 ❘ 2001, Vol. 7, No. 1
Page 1 and 2:
ContentsEvolutionary Psychology: An
Page 3 and 4: A Synopsis of “The Sevens Sins of
Page 5 and 6: A Synopsis of “The Sevens Sins of
Page 7 and 8: Minding the Brainon the basis of re
Page 9 and 10: Minding the Brainamong bona fide et
Page 11 and 12: Minding the Brainin their language
Page 13 and 14: Minding the BrainReferencesBateson,
Page 15: “La plus ça change…”simple c
Page 18 and 19: Linda MealeyReferencesAlcock, J. (1
Page 20 and 21: Carlos StegmannComments on Jaak Pan
Page 22 and 23: Carlos Stegmanntive mechanisms. Mos
Page 24 and 25: Carlos StegmannReferencesCarnap, R.
Page 26 and 27: Russell Gardner, Jr.these subcortic
Page 28 and 29: Russell Gardner, Jr.The enormous sw
Page 30 and 31: Russell Gardner, Jr.ReferencesBakke
Page 32 and 33: Gerhard Meisenbergmodular systems a
Page 34 and 35: Gerhard Meisenbergstraight into the
Page 36 and 37: Gerhard Meisenbergcan assume new fu
Page 38 and 39: Gerhard MeisenbergNishimura, H./Has
Page 40 and 41: Ian Pitchfordother biological resou
Page 42 and 43: Ian Pitchfordappreciation that the
Page 44 and 45: Ian Pitchfordin developmental psych
Page 46 and 47: Scott AtranThe Case for Modularity:
Page 48 and 49: Scott Atranvant domain. For example
Page 50 and 51: Scott Atranpalm lines. From the fac
Page 52 and 53: Scott Atrangroups of species: snake
Page 56 and 57: Jaak Panksepp and Jules B. Panksepp
Page 82 and 83: Shulamith Kreitlertion—he said on
Page 84 and 85: Shulamith Kreitlercognitive process
Page 86 and 87: Shulamith KreitlerBeliefs about Sel
Page 88 and 89: Shulamith KreitlerInterpersonally-s
Page 90 and 91: Shulamith Kreitlercreased complexit
Page 92 and 93: Shulamith Kreitlerof plasticity. At
Page 94 and 95: Shulamith Kreitlerdevelopmental lev
Page 96 and 97: Shulamith KreitlerKreitler, S./Chem
Page 98 and 99: Chris MacDonaldEvolutionary EthicsV
Page 100 and 101: Chris MacDonaldand… the goods of
Page 102 and 103: Chris MacDonaldMexyzYoux y z0 1 30
Page 104 and 105:
Chris MacDonaldmore generally) come
Page 106 and 107:
Zusammenfassungen der Artikelin deu
Page 108 and 109:
Zusammenfassungen der Artikel in de
Page 110 and 111:
Zusammenfassungen der Artikel in de
show all

The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology - Konrad Lorenz Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?