Nature Vs. Nurture: Can Evolutionary Psychology And Cultural .

1y ago
11 Views
2 Downloads
771.76 KB
21 Pages
Last View : 2m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Amalia Wilborn
Transcription

Nature vs. Nurture: Can Evolutionary Psychologyand Cultural Anthropology be Reconciled?

Where is free will in evolutionary psychology(EP) and cultural anthropology (CA)?Neither field explicitly studies free will.Nevertheless, both fields can accommodate compatibilistand libertarian free will.

If nature and/or nurture determines ouractions (“determinism”), we still havecompatibilist free will so long as we donot face coercion.If nature and/or nurture influences but does notdetermine our actions, we could still have libertarianfree will.The rest of today’s class leaves aside questions of freewill, focusing instead on the potential conflict betweenEP and CA.

EP: Evolution has left us with a humannature.CA: There is no such thing as human nature. Culture islearned, and we start with a blank slate.

Smith’s attempted reconciliation of EP and CAAll people begin with the same human nature, which is aproduct of evolution. Cultural differences then get layeredon top of this universal human nature.

Which would be more successful in promoting inclusivefitness?A universal human nature leading to certain behaviorsunder all circumstances?ORA basic and universal human nature leading to behaviorsthat depend upon the conditions in your society?

Incest TaboosIn animal studies using artificial insemination, parent/childand brother/sister matings dramatically increase thechances of unhealthy recessive traits.However, in studies of both animals and humans, there isonly a relatively small increase in genetic abnormalities forthe offspring of first cousins, though the problems cancompound over many generations.

Smith’s attempted synthesis of EP and CA:Humans have taboos against incest because avoiding sexwith close kin increased our ancestors’ inclusive fitness.Unlike some other things that are illegal, most people haveno desire to break the brother/sister and parent/childtaboos, which points to an evolutionary origin.For relationships other than brother/sister and parent/child,culture can expand who is included within the taboos.

Data on incest taboos across differentsocietiesAmong thousands of societies studied, none has everendorsed parent-child sexual relations. These relationssometimes happen (through abuse and rape), but not withsocial approval.Only a handful of societies (ancient Egypt, Hawaii, theIncas) have allowed brother-sister sexual relations, and thatwas only for royalty. Brother-sister relations were taboo foreveryone else.Beyond taboos on sex with people from the samehousehold, societies vary greatly.

In Western countries, cousin marriage usedto be common and is legal throughoutEurope. In the U.S., 19 states place norestrictions on first-cousin marriage,but the practice is generally frowned upon.Some famous Westerners throughout history have marriedtheir first cousins.In many societies, cousins (sometimes cross-cousins,sometimes parallel cousins) are the preferred marriagepartners.

rates of marriage, first or second cousinsThus, a society’s norms about sex with people raisedoutside the same household have cultural, not evolutionary,origins.

Food TaboosWhich of the following would you order at a restaurant?

In countries as diverse as France, Japan,and Kazakhstan, people eat horses.Americans eat a lot of beef. Strict Hindusin India do not eat beef at all, thoughothers do.

Jews who keep kosher may onlyeat a land animal that has cloven hoofsand chews its cud, fish withfins and scales, and certain birds.In the Trobriand Islands, onlylower-ranked clans can eatshark and stingray.

Food taboos might have an evolutionary origin, as a wayto avoid toxins. However, the only universal taboo isagainst eating dead and decaying animals and plants.Most food taboos have no clear linkage tohealth. Most scholars trace their origins topromoting group cohesion or marking aperson’s social status.The diversity of food taboos across societies indicates that,beyond dead and decaying animals and plants, culture hasfree rein.

Are the standards of physical attractivenessuniversal?· forsome standards (those connected tohealth, fertility, and genetic fitness in ancestralenvironments), yes· forother standards (those unconnected to health,fertility, and genetic fitness in ancestral environments), no

Universal standards of attractiveness acceptedin evolutionary psychology:facial symmetryskin qualityin women: youth (child-bearing years)in women: .7 ratio of waist to hipsin men: height, strength, deep voice, strong jaw.No one has even tried to challenge the universality ofmost of these. The fourth one, however, shows somevariability across societies.

Some standards of attractiveness that differacross societies, thus indicating culturalorigins:· Longnecks for Padaung women in Burmaand Thailand.· Smallfeet and broken arches forupper class women before the earlypart of the 20th century in China, whichjustified foot-binding.· Individualsdiffer on whether they prefer a certain“look,” and some people have fetishes.

· Standards for body weight differ historicallyand around the world.Titian (1488-1576)Rubens (1577-1640)

· When food is relatively scarce, heavier people aremore attractive.Possible combination of evolution (we are attracted tosigns of health and wealth) and culture (the characteristicsthat indicate health and wealth depend on the context).

· Normsabout pubic, leg, underarm, and facialhair differ historically and around the world.Beliefs and practices that are “merely cultural” arenevertheless difficult to overturn.

If nature and/or nurture influences but does not determine our actions, we could still have libertarian free will. If nature and/or nurture determines our actions ("determinism"), we still have compatibilist free will so long as we do not face coercion. The rest of today's class leaves aside questions of free

Related Documents:

Nature, Nurture, and Human Diversity Gender Development The Nature of Gender The Nurture of Gender Reflections on Nature and Nurture. 2 7 Nature, Nurture, and Human Diversity Similarities Differences Genes: Same set of . Lecture_04_Nature, Nurture, Diversity.ppt Author:

Nature versus nurture IIE 366: Developmental Psychology Greg Francis Lecture 06 Family Policy and Nature-Nurture I. Child Development and Family Policy A. Background B. Ways to Influence Family Policy C. Influences on Research II. Nature and Nurture A. Genetic Influence on Intelligence B. N

program Explore Discover Educate Buy Entering the Nurture program Contact journey Nurture program experience The Nurture program is automated and always on. Nurture delivers content that’s relevant to the contact, based on their pain points and engagement. Contacts are routed to the right

evolutionary biology. From this point of view, some authors have tried to extend the Darwinian theory universally beyond the domain of evolutionary biology (Cf. Dawkins, 1983), using the three principles of evolutionary theory (inheritance or retention, variation, and adaptation) as a heuristic for evolutionary economic theorizing (Campbell, 1965).

NATURE OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE Leda Cosmides* and John Tooby* EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and understand the de- sign of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology and human evolutionary

Dec 31, 2000 · also compare nature/nurture effects for a wide range of variables in order to obtain a more complete picture of the role of nature versus nurture, and nature/nurture interactions, on measures of children’s long-run behaviors and well-being. We find that, even before any inh

data into studies of eco-evolutionary dynamics can provide a better mechanistic understanding of the causes of phenotypic change, help elucidate the mechanisms driving eco-evolutionary dynamics and lead to more accurate evolutionary predictions of eco-evolutionary dynamics in nature (Fig. 2). What genomic data can reveal about

Archaeological Research & Consultancy at the University of Sheffield Research School of Archaeology West Court 2 Mappin Street Sheffield S1 4DT Phone 0114 2225106 Fax 0114 2797158 Project Report 413h.1 Archaeological Evaluation of the Upper Loading Bay, Castle Market, Sheffield April 2002 By Glyn Davies and James Symonds With Contributions by Chris Cumberpatch, Jennie Stopford, Hugh Willmott .