The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology - Konrad Lorenz Institute

An Evolutionary Perspective on Cognitive OrientationThe third phase is focused on determining the directionalityof behavior. One important evolutionarytrend concerns the emergence of underlyingmeanings. Their range and depth increase so thatthey come to represent the matrix of meanings outof which the behavioral intent can be shaped. Thishowever raises a dilemma. On the one hand, it isdesirable for shaping the behavioral directionality toevolve a broad and deep set of underlying meanings.Yet, on the other hand, awareness of this completeset would render action difficult insofar as it constitutesa heavy memory load and uses large mentalresources of consciousness. The solution to the dilemmacould be to develop the whole matrix but tokeep it unconscious. Possibly, the demands ofsmooth action and preservation of mental resourcesmay have promoted development of the unconsciousness.Other interesting lines of development concernthe formation of the CO cluster. Most important ofall is the issue of the number of belief types that arenecessary for creating a CO cluster. At the lowestlevel, as a rule only one belief type dominates thescene, most probably goals (= representing approachor avoidance, “I want” or “I don’t want”). The nextbelief type to make its contribution to behavioraldirectionality is rules and norms (= representingconstraints of right and wrong, allowed or forbiddenand later also of utility, desirability etc.). Each coulddominate the scene in itself. An important developmentoccurs however when beliefs about goals andbeliefs about rules and norms do not point in thesame direction, or when they clash. A study withchildren showed that it is only under these conditionsthat the other belief types general beliefs andself beliefs enter the scene and begin to make a differencein predicting the child’s behavior (MAROM1978).There are other pairs of belief types that couldform inconsistencies of consequence for the developmentof the CO cluster. One is the inconsistencybetween beliefs about goals and general beliefs,which occurs when prevailing circumstances do notsupport the attainment of a goal. This may havebeen the case for the apes studied by DELGADO (1974)whose goal to express aggression was not matchedby the information that the target or would-be victimis a strong ape who would not easily succumb.Another example is the inconsistency between beliefsabout norms and beliefs about self, which occursfor example when one becomes aware of notliving up to the requirements. Again, there is the gapbetween beliefs about norms and general beliefs thatmay occur when reality does not live up to normativerequirements. A last example concerns the gapbetween beliefs about self and general beliefs, whichoccurs when informations about oneself and othersare inconsistent. In each of these cases the drive forsolution is based on bringing into consideration additionalinformation, in the form of further types ofbeliefs. Hence, the drive behind the formation of aCO cluster representing the overall directionalityimplied by four types of beliefs is the inconsistenciesin directionality between any two pairs of belieftypes. Studies showed that when individuals functionunder difficult conditions, such as the impactof drugs or medication, drunkenness, fatigue, or intenseemotions, they tend to form CO clusters basedon fewer than all four types of beliefs. The inconsistenciesbetween belief types serve to mobilize for theCO cluster more beliefs. This enables forming a COcluster if there are enough beliefs supporting thecourse of action rather than if all beliefs or all belieftypes support it.The increase in the number of belief types onwhich the CO cluster is based is probably attendedalso by other developments in the formation of theCO clusters. We will mention in particular four thatare of special importance. The first concerns the anchorof the CO cluster. Originally, the anchor musthave been a goal belief. In the course of development,other belief types could assume this role, inline with the characteristics of the behavior consideredfor enactment. For example, general beliefswhen the behavior is conformity, norm beliefs whenthe behavior is helping others, beliefs about selfwhen the behavior is assertiveness. Secondly, alsothe salience of the belief type in the formation of theCO cluster developed from a fixed order to an orderthat varies in line with the behavior and circumstances,and later possibly also personality. Thirdly,the range of implications of the beliefs that exerts animpact on the processes of belief interactions andclustering undergoes change. The primary and mostimportant kind of implication is orientativeness,namely, the degree to which the belief supports thebehavior. Development sets in operation furthertypes of implications (e.g., morality, utility, emotionalimpact), which though initially they play asecondary role, they increasingly contribute to theformation of the CO cluster and to shaping the directionalityof behavior. Finally, development occursalso in regard to the amount of consistencyamong the orientativeness of the beliefs required forthe formation of a CO cluster and the consequentemergence of the behavioral intent. On the lowestEvolution and Cognition ❘ 93 ❘ 2001, Vol. 7, No. 1