The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology - Konrad Lorenz Institute

Shulamith Kreitlertion—he said one day (I bring his views in a freeparaphrase of my notes from the time): “The cognitiveorientation theory is the extreme opposite of thebrand of behaviorism that I have developed andwhich came to be called SKINNERIANISM. It is oppositebecause it starts on the top, uses an apparently unparsimoniousset of theoretical concepts, assumesprimacy of the cognitive system, and attributes acentral role to cognition in the functioning of organisms.In contrast, SKINNERIANISM starts at the verybottom, uses an apparently monastically frugal setof a-theoretical concepts, does not accord any statusto the cognitive system, whose existence it barelyacknowledges and considers as a theoretical outrage,and attributes no role to it in the functioning of organisms.However, an integral part of the developmentof an approach in science (viz. theory) is to testits extensibility. Therefore, I was intent to test howfar up the evolutionary ladder I can get, in order tofind out how much I can explain with my theoreticallymeager tools on the higher levels of psycho–biological functioning. That’s why I tried to explaineven politics in behaviorist terms and why I wroteWalden Two, a book about a utopian society basedonly on operational conditioning. You should do thesame with the cognitive orientation theory, thoughin an inverse sense. Your task is to test how far downthe evolutionary ladder you can get with the cognitiveorientation theory, in order to find out howmuch you can explain with your theoretically richtools on the lower levels of psycho–biological functioningpreceding the human. Since you start with abig load of concepts, stepping down the evolutionaryladder should give you a chance to see whichcomponents developed and why. Frankly, I envy youthis task”. So, this is the task with which this paperdeals. Notably, the procedure suggested by SKINNERcorresponds to the use of evolutionary thinkingwithin the top-down system advocated by DEKAYand SHACKELFORD (2000). Handling this task was delayedso much probably because we had first to learnmuch more about the cognitive orientation theorybefore we could put it to the test of ‘extensibility’.Cognition: What It Is not and What It IsThe basic thesis of the cognitive orientation (CO)theory is that cognitive contents and processes guidebehavior. Cognitive contents refer to information,beliefs, attitudes, opinions, values, and meanings inthe broad sense of the term, whereas cognitive processesare operations and transformations of differentkinds that deal with the production, testing,elaboration, transformation, analysis, storing,retrieval and uses of cognitive contents. Cognition,as defined above, is not restricted to any particularspecies and occurs on different evolutionary levels.In principle, we should expect its barest primarymanifestations in the simplest organisms (RIEDL1980, 1981, 1987).In order to understand better the role of cognitionin the motivational context, it is necessary to emphasizethat cognition does not entail rationality and noteven reasonableness. The fact that humans maythink rationally does not mean that they always ormostly do or that this kind of thinking prevails in themotivational context. Rationality constitutes one setof rules which may guide cognition, but there areother sets, such as Aristotelian logic, Boolean logic,mythological thinking, symbolic thinking, magicalthinking etc. (CASSIRER 1953; KREITLER 1965; LÉVI-STRAUSS 1979).Likewise, the involvement of cognition in motivationdoes not mean that motivation depends on orinvolves a decisional process which considers, for example,benefits and costs, advantages and disadvantages,pros and cons, weighing each carefully and calculatingthe end-result according to normativedecision rules (as some models of cognitive motivationassume, e.g., BECKER 1974; ROGERS 1983; RONIS1992).Further, cognition does not entail consciousness,nor is it a product or function of consciousness. Consciousnessis itself a function of cognition, and mayaffect cognitive functioning but is not a necessarycondition for cognition (KREITLER 1999). Cognitiveprocesses run their course without consciousness asmost other organismic processes. They may becomeconscious to a certain extent, under specific conditions,when this subserves the needs of the organism.Similarly, cognition does not entail voluntary control.Though the exercise of so-called voluntary controlinvolves cognition, the involvement of cognitiondoes not mean that one has voluntary control overany aspect of the motivational dynamics of behavior.Finally, cognition is not restricted to the verbal medium.Indeed, cognitive processes may occur withoutrelying on any formal medium of expression, andwhen some of their aspects or end-results are expressedor communicated this may occur by meansof any form of expression, verbal or nonverbal.So, given that cognition is not necessarily logical,reasonable, conscious, voluntarily controlled andverbal, which positive property can be attributed toit? We venture to suggest that it is meaning-dependent.Evolution and Cognition ❘ 82 ❘ 2001, Vol. 7, No. 1