Evolutionary explanations
Thursday, March 25th, 2004 07:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerOne of the disturbing and amusing things about growing older is realising how much you've been influenced by fashions. While photographs of your younger self sporting bell-bottoms, a safety-pin through the nose or a mullet (depending on your age) merely raise an embarrassed laugh, reminders that you were a dedicated follower of intellectual fashion provoke soul searching. I doubt if Kerry is happy to be reminded of his VVAW days, and not just because it's damaging for his campaign; it is a sign that however committed he may have been, going to anti-war rallies and growing long hair were both fashion statements.
Fortunately, I have no embarrassing political U-turns in my life so far. My politics have mellowed considerably with age, but I started out on the left, and I still haven't got as far right as New Labour (in fact the last time I did one of those political quizzes, I still came out as being slightly further to the libertarian left of "Red Ken" Livingstone). However, when it comes to other intellectual trends, I've been as much of a fashion victim as anyone.
Take the nature-nurture debate, for example. Starting in the mid-1970s, I was a staunch bevaviorist, at least to the extent that it was compatible with my other, weirder, ideas. (I'm probably the only person who became a behaviorist as a result of a mystical experience.) This went well with my politics, since I was avidly following another trend of the times, radical feminism (not that, strictly speaking, I counted as a radfem, but I was still part of that socialist-anarchist-feminist-vegetarian coterie). The Locke-Skinner hypothesis that we are blank slates on which experience and society writes what it pleases tied in perfectly with some of the dogmas of the day, notably that the psychological differences between men and women were conditioned, not innate. Not only that, they were conditioned by evil people, so the first act of resistance was to decondition yourself and break the stereotypes. This was generally more enjoyable and liberating for women than for men (one of my many ideas of Hell is an eternal anti-sexist men's consciousness-raising workshop).
With the 1980s came sociobiology, but I didn't jump on that bandwagon, partly because it was associated (often completely inaccurately) with nasty, sexist right-wing people, and partly because many of the arguments were weak (wasps and fish are not good indicators of human behaviour). However, I chanced on Chomsky's devastating critique of Skinner, and my behaviorism bit the dust. Chomsky was the acceptable face of nativism. Rather than using biology to argue that Blacks have lower IQs or women want to stay in the home, he emphasised our genetic similarity through things like Universal Grammar. Most importantly, he was One of Us, a libertarian socialist who was better known for his attacks on American foreign policy than his linguistic theories. Small wonder I became a card-carrying Chomskyan.
My adherence to Chomskyan linguistics lasted until I encountered Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things and suddenly became a camp follower in the cognitivist revolution (I was always a late arrival - I'd actually missed most of the revolution and walked in on the mopping-up operation).
Now I'm coming to the end of reading Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and am trying to resist the temptation to go overboard on evolutionary psychology. Unlike the sociobiologists of the 1980s, Pinker argues extremely well, and seems, like Chomsky and Lakoff, to be somewhere on the left of the political spectrum (at least by American standards). I've read a few books on logic and critical thinking (hell, I even teach it sometimes) but I still find it much easier to accept an idea when it comes from someone who seems like a nice person who wouldn't drown kittens or vote for George Bush. Pinker probably has an evolutionary explanation for this.
And that's the fun part. While trying desperately to avoid coming in at what may well be the end of yet another intellectual fashion, I find it hard not to succumb to the appeal of evolutionary explanations. Behaviorism was boring. Why do women wear make-up? Social conditioning. Why do men enjoy football? Social conditioning. Why do workers support conservative politicians? Social conditioning. Yawn.
With evolutionary psychology, you can think up colourful explanations for almost any human behaviour you care to think of. Here are some examples off the top of my head.
Why do we enjoy jigsaw puzzles? The ability to detect patterns in a chaotic jumble of colours was an advantage when detecting predators concealed by foliage.
Why do women splash water all over the bathroom when they take a shower? It was an early form of irrigation, leading to richer plant-growth around water holes and the discovery of agriculture.
Why won't men ask for directions when they're driving? Hunting is more competitive and status-ridden than gathering. A female forager asking a friend the way to the nearest water hole would not only receive directions, but a tip on which species of berry is "in" this season. A male asking the same question of another male would get an answer like "Follow the wildebeest tracks, dumbass."
Why did the Democrats nominate a candidate with such an appalling hairstyle? Big hair is an evolutionary adaption causing males to look taller than they really are. (Pinker notes that 20 out of the last 24 presidential elections were won by the taller candidate.) Coupled with the fact that ability to spend money mangling your hair during an economic recession is a sign of status, this also explains the puzzling popularity of Jason Donovan and Kajagoogoo in the 1980s.
Why do most computer users still prefer Windows, despite its obvious inferiority? Operating systems are like food; what you know is less likely to kill you. Linux users have a gene for experimentation: they are like the paleolithic foragers who were the first to try a new berry. Windows users are like their friends who stand around saying "Mmm, looks delicious" while waiting for them to keel over and die.
Fortunately, I have no embarrassing political U-turns in my life so far. My politics have mellowed considerably with age, but I started out on the left, and I still haven't got as far right as New Labour (in fact the last time I did one of those political quizzes, I still came out as being slightly further to the libertarian left of "Red Ken" Livingstone). However, when it comes to other intellectual trends, I've been as much of a fashion victim as anyone.
Take the nature-nurture debate, for example. Starting in the mid-1970s, I was a staunch bevaviorist, at least to the extent that it was compatible with my other, weirder, ideas. (I'm probably the only person who became a behaviorist as a result of a mystical experience.) This went well with my politics, since I was avidly following another trend of the times, radical feminism (not that, strictly speaking, I counted as a radfem, but I was still part of that socialist-anarchist-feminist-vegetarian coterie). The Locke-Skinner hypothesis that we are blank slates on which experience and society writes what it pleases tied in perfectly with some of the dogmas of the day, notably that the psychological differences between men and women were conditioned, not innate. Not only that, they were conditioned by evil people, so the first act of resistance was to decondition yourself and break the stereotypes. This was generally more enjoyable and liberating for women than for men (one of my many ideas of Hell is an eternal anti-sexist men's consciousness-raising workshop).
With the 1980s came sociobiology, but I didn't jump on that bandwagon, partly because it was associated (often completely inaccurately) with nasty, sexist right-wing people, and partly because many of the arguments were weak (wasps and fish are not good indicators of human behaviour). However, I chanced on Chomsky's devastating critique of Skinner, and my behaviorism bit the dust. Chomsky was the acceptable face of nativism. Rather than using biology to argue that Blacks have lower IQs or women want to stay in the home, he emphasised our genetic similarity through things like Universal Grammar. Most importantly, he was One of Us, a libertarian socialist who was better known for his attacks on American foreign policy than his linguistic theories. Small wonder I became a card-carrying Chomskyan.
My adherence to Chomskyan linguistics lasted until I encountered Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things and suddenly became a camp follower in the cognitivist revolution (I was always a late arrival - I'd actually missed most of the revolution and walked in on the mopping-up operation).
Now I'm coming to the end of reading Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and am trying to resist the temptation to go overboard on evolutionary psychology. Unlike the sociobiologists of the 1980s, Pinker argues extremely well, and seems, like Chomsky and Lakoff, to be somewhere on the left of the political spectrum (at least by American standards). I've read a few books on logic and critical thinking (hell, I even teach it sometimes) but I still find it much easier to accept an idea when it comes from someone who seems like a nice person who wouldn't drown kittens or vote for George Bush. Pinker probably has an evolutionary explanation for this.
And that's the fun part. While trying desperately to avoid coming in at what may well be the end of yet another intellectual fashion, I find it hard not to succumb to the appeal of evolutionary explanations. Behaviorism was boring. Why do women wear make-up? Social conditioning. Why do men enjoy football? Social conditioning. Why do workers support conservative politicians? Social conditioning. Yawn.
With evolutionary psychology, you can think up colourful explanations for almost any human behaviour you care to think of. Here are some examples off the top of my head.
Why do we enjoy jigsaw puzzles? The ability to detect patterns in a chaotic jumble of colours was an advantage when detecting predators concealed by foliage.
Why do women splash water all over the bathroom when they take a shower? It was an early form of irrigation, leading to richer plant-growth around water holes and the discovery of agriculture.
Why won't men ask for directions when they're driving? Hunting is more competitive and status-ridden than gathering. A female forager asking a friend the way to the nearest water hole would not only receive directions, but a tip on which species of berry is "in" this season. A male asking the same question of another male would get an answer like "Follow the wildebeest tracks, dumbass."
Why did the Democrats nominate a candidate with such an appalling hairstyle? Big hair is an evolutionary adaption causing males to look taller than they really are. (Pinker notes that 20 out of the last 24 presidential elections were won by the taller candidate.) Coupled with the fact that ability to spend money mangling your hair during an economic recession is a sign of status, this also explains the puzzling popularity of Jason Donovan and Kajagoogoo in the 1980s.
Why do most computer users still prefer Windows, despite its obvious inferiority? Operating systems are like food; what you know is less likely to kill you. Linux users have a gene for experimentation: they are like the paleolithic foragers who were the first to try a new berry. Windows users are like their friends who stand around saying "Mmm, looks delicious" while waiting for them to keel over and die.
