Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer
Leda Cosmides & John Tooby
Introduction
The goal of rearch in evolutionary psychology is to discover and understand the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to u in rearch on the structure of the human mind. It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it.
In this view, the mind is a t of information-processing machines that were designed by natural lection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behavior is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones. This chapter is a primer on the concepts and arguments that animate it.
Debauching the mind: Evolutionary psychology's past and prent
事业单位是公务员吗
In the final pages of the Origin of Species, after he had prented the theory of evolution by natural l
ection, Darwin made a bold prediction: "In the distant future I e open fields for far more important rearches. Psychology will be bad on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation." Thirty years later, William James tried to do just that in his minal book, Principles of Psychology, one of the founding works of experimental psychology (James, 1890). In Principles, James talked a lot of "instincts". This term was ud to refer (roughly) to specialized neural circuits that are common to every member of a species and are the product of that species' evolutionary history. Taken together, such circuits constitute (in our own species) what one can think of as "human nature".
It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals. William James took the opposite view. He argued that human behavior is more flexibly intelligent than that of other animals becau we have more instincts than they do, not fewer. We tend to be blind to the existence of the instincts, however, precily becau they work so well -- becau they process information so effortlessly and automatically. They structure our thought so powerfully, he argued, that it can be difficult to imagine how things could be otherwi. As a result, we take "normal" behavior for granted. We do not realize that "normal" behavior needs to be explain中小学生安全知识
ed at all. This "instinct blindness" makes the study of psychology difficult. To get past this problem, James suggested that we try to make the "natural em strange":
"a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making
the natural em strange, so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive
human act. To the metaphysician alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when plead, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside-down? The common man can only say, Of cour we
全脂牛奶和脱脂牛奶有什么区别smile, of cour our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of cour we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably
and flagrantly made for all eternity to be loved!电脑共享文件
And so, probably, does each animal feel about the particular things it
tends to do in the prence of particular objects. ... To the lion it is the
lioness which is made to be loved; to the bear, the she-bear. To the
broody hen the notion would probably em monstrous that there should
be a creature in the world to whom a nestful of eggs was not the utterly
fascinating and precious and never-to-be-too-much-sat-upon object which it is to her.
Thus we may be sure that, however mysterious some animals' instincts
may appear to us, our instincts will appear no less mysterious to them."
(William James, 1890)
In our view, William James was right about evolutionary psychology. Making the natural em strange is unnatural -- it requires the twisted outlook en, for example, in Gary Larson cartoons. Yet it is a pivotal part of the enterpri. Many psychologists avoid the study of natural competences, thinking that there is nothing there to be explained. As a result, social psychologists are disappointed unless they find a phenomenon "that would surpri their grandmothers", and cognitive psychologists spend more time studying how we solve problems we are bad at, like learning math or
明月楼高休独倚playing chess, than ones we are good at. But our natural competences -- our abilities to e, to speak, to find someone beautiful, to reciprocate a favor, to fear dia, to fall in love, to initiate an attack, to experience moral outrage, to navigate a landscape, and myriad others -- are possible only becau there is a vast and heterogenous array of complex computational machinery supporting and regulating the activities. This machinery works so well that we don't even realize that it exists -- We all suffer from instinct blindness. As a result, psychologists have neglected to study some of the most interesting machinery in the human mind.
Figure 1:Three complementary levels of explanation in evolutionary psychology. Inferences (reprented by the arrows) can be made from one level to another.
An evolutionary approach provides powerful lens that correct for instinct blindness. It allows one to
recognize what natural competences exist, it indicates that the mind is a heterogeneous collection of the competences and, most
importantly, it provides positive theories of their designs. Einstein once commented that "It is the theory which decides what we can obrve". An evolutionary focus is valuable for psychologists, who are studying a biological system of fantastic complexity, becau it can make the intricate outlines of the mind's design stand out in sharp relief. Theories of adaptive problems can guide the arch for the cognitive programs that solve them; knowing what cognitive programs exist can, in turn, guide the arch for their neural basis.(See Figure 1.)
The Standard Social Science Model
One of our colleagues, Don Symons, is fond of saying that you cannot understand what a person is saying unless you understand who they are arguing with. Applying evolutionary biology to the study of the mind has brought most evolutionary psychologists into conflict with a traditional view of its structure, which aro long before Darwin. This view is no historical relic: it remains highly influential, more than a century after Darwin and William James wrote.
Both before and after Darwin, a common view among philosophers and scientists has been that the
human mind rembles a blank slate, virtually free of content until written on by the hand of experience. According to Aquinas, there is "nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the ns." Working within this framework, the British Empiricists and their successors produced elaborate theories about how experience, refracted through a small handful of innate mental procedures, inscribed content onto the mental slate. David Hume's view was typical, and t the pattern for many later psychological and social science theories: "...there appear to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely Remblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cau or Effect."
Over the years, the technological metaphor ud to describe the structure of the human mind has been consistently updated, from blank slate to switchboard to general purpo computer, but the central tenet of the Empiricist views has remained the same. Indeed, it has become the reigning orthodoxy in mainstream卡通兔子简笔画
anthropology, sociology, and most areas of psychology. According to this orthodoxy, all of the specific content of the human mind originally derives from the "outside" -- from the environment and the social world -- and the evolved architecture of the mind consists solely or predominantly of a small number of general purpo mechanisms that are content-independent, and which sail under n
三只小熊歌曲
警训ames such as "learning," "induction," "intelligence," "imitation," "rationality," "the capacity for culture," or simply "culture."
According to this view, the same mechanisms are thought to govern how one acquires a language, how one learns to recognize emotional expressions, how one thinks about incest, or how one acquires ideas and attitudes about friends and reciprocity -- everything but perception. This is becau the mechanisms that govern reasoning, learning, and memory are assumed to operate uniformly, according to unchanging principles, regardless of the content they are operating on or the larger category or domain involved. (For this reason, they are described as content-independent or domain-general.) Such mechanisms, by definition, have no pre-existing content built-in to their procedures, they are not designed to construct certain contents more readily than others, and they have no features specialized for processing particular kinds of content. Since the hypothetical mental mechanisms have no content to impart, it follows that all the particulars of what we think and feel derive externally, from the physical and social world. The social world organizes and injects meaning into individual minds, but our universal human psychological architecture has no distinctive structure that organizes the social world or imbues it with characteristic meanings. According to this familiar view -- what we have elwhere called the Standard Social Science Model -- the contents of
human minds are primarily (or entirely) free social constructions, and the social sciences are autonomous and disconnected from any evolutionary or psychological foundation (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).
Three decades of progress and convergence in cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, and neuroscience have shown that this view of the human mind is radically defective. Evolutionary psychology provides an alternative
