Biology isn’t destiny (2022)

|

AS A human, you are undoubtedly an animal, even if you do not always choose to think of yourself that way. Like other animals, you eat, breathe and mate. It is only 5m years since your ancestors parted evolutionary company with those of the chimpanzees, and only a couple of hundred thousand since modern humans left Africa to begin their conquest of the world.

You might therefore expect evolutionary biology to cast light on the essential nature of humans. If they are products of evolution, then ought not evolution help explain what makes them tick? In theory it should. But the track record of the purely biological approach to thinking and human behaviour is poor. A generation ago, thinkers as different as Desmond Morris, a British ethologist, and E. O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, began to offer explanations of humans in biological terms, with distinctly uneven results. Simple-minded applications of biological concepts like “pecking order”, “nesting instinct” and “alpha male” have achieved little but crude caricatures of human life, and nobody but committed enthusiasts was persuaded.

(Video) Biology Isn't Destiny

Yet the biological approach would not lie down. A new phalanx of biological thinkers is now emerging under the banner of “evolutionary psychology”. The name itself is due to two American academics, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, and their message is that recent advances in cognitive science now make it possible to avoid the mistakes of earlier biologically inclined thinkers. The bible of this movement is a collection of essays they edited with John Barkow, “The Adapted Mind” (Oxford University Press). Their introduction to this book serves as a manifesto calling on psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and economists to break free from outmoded tradition and to begin anew within the framework of Darwinian theory.

Popularisers have followed hard on the heels of the academics. Two of the most successful are Matt Ridley and Steven Pinker. Mr Ridley was science editor of The Economist, and in his most recent book, “The Origins of Virtue”, published by Viking two years ago, he sought the seeds of human altruism in life on the African savannah. Understanding the evolutionary pressures responsible for fellow-feeling, Mr Ridley believes, will help identify the kinds of society that best suit human beings.

Steven Pinker is even more ambitious. He is professor of psychology at MIT, and now rather better known as a telegenic author and magazine contributor: he wrote a short piece for the “Talk of Town” section in a recent issue of the New Yorker offering “an evolutionary explanation for presidents behaving badly”. Yet Mr Pinker has serious aims and his latest, much talked about book, “How The Mind Works” (Norton; Allen Lane), is modest neither in title nor scope. He starts fairly sedately, with chapters on hominid evolution and visual perception. But once into his stride there is no stopping him. By the end, he has offered evolutionary explanations for human emotions, personal relationships, humour, music, literature, art and religion.

Where psychology went wrong

What exactly is new about evolutionary psychology? Psychology is the key term here. Any serious account of human beings has to give a central place to their intellectual abilities. People have taken over the planet not because they are stronger or fiercer than other animals (they aren't), but because they are cleverer. This is where older biological approaches broke down. They had nothing to say about human intelligence, but portrayed people as doltish bundles of instincts.

The fault lay less in biology than psychology. Until fairly recently the dominant paradigm in psychology offered virtually no purchase for evolutionary theorising. From David Hume in 1750 to B.F. Skinner in 1950, it was more or less taken for granted that all intelligence is built on one simple mechanism, the association of ideas. Intelligent minds start as blank slates, and gradually build up a picture of the world from elements associated in our experience. Given this assumption, there was little to say about how evolution might have made people cleverer. The only answer was that it must have made them better at making associations, presumably by enlarging their brains. So claims about “nesting instincts” and “pecking orders” seemed beside the point. They left out what made you special: your superior associative abilities.

Psychology is not like that any more. Instead of viewing the brain as one big associative engine, an increasing number of psychologists now take it to be a bundle of “modules”, each dedicated to a different intellectual ability, and each pre-programmed with a substantial body of information about the world. A key moment was Noam Chomsky's attack on Skinner's associative account of language-learning. In a famous review of Skinner's theory in 1959, Mr Chomsky argued that associationism could not possibly explain human language. Children learn it too fast, and on such incomplete evidence, and there are so many odd parallels between different tongues, that the only plausible explanation is an innate and dedicated “language organ”, which grows in the brain, just as your heart grows in the chest.

Once Mr Chomsky had made this breach, the floodgates opened. Psychologists now postulate innate “modules” for any number of intellectual abilities. That new approach was codified 15 years ago by a philosopher colleague of Mr Chomsky's at MIT, Jerry Fodor, in “The Modularity of Mind” (MIT Press). Mr Fodor appealed in this book to a wide range of evidence to argue that many dedicated cognitive devices are part of an innate inheritance and embody assumptions that could not have been derived from experience. Some of the modules postulated by psychologists are unsurprising, such as a module for visually identifying physical objects, or for segmenting heard speech into words. But others are less obvious, like a module for face recognition, or for distinguishing animals from artefacts, or thinking about other people's minds and motives.

Now add Darwin to modules

Evolutionary psychology is what you get when you marry the modular view of the mind to the modern Darwinian theory of natural selection. Along with the modules, you get claims about the evolutionary purposes for which they were selected. In a way, it is surprising that this marriage has taken so long to arrange. One of the curiosities of modern intellectual life is that Messrs Chomsky and Fodor, the pathbreakers who believe that many intellectual capacities are innate, have nonetheless resisted the evolutionary approach to the mind. After all, the whole thrust of their modular revolution was that the brain contains a number of purpose-specific organs whose construction is directed by the genes. Despite that, the originators of the “nativist” revolution have from the start discounted attempts to plumb the evolutionary history of these organs.

One rather superficial worry may be that, once you start down the evolutionary path, you will end up concluding that intellectual differences between human groups are due to differences in their genes. However, evolutionary psychologists like Ms Cosmides and Mr Tooby have insisted all along that this is no part of their agenda. They are not interested in differences, but likenesses. Here they contrast themselves with social-scientific orthodoxy. Throughout this century, anthropologists and sociologists have emphasised cultural diversity. They have taken the wide spectrum of human arrangements to show that virtually any pattern can be imposed on the blank slate of human mentality by diverse cultural environments. A famous book epitomising this view was Margaret Mead's pre-war bestseller, “Coming of Age in Samoa”, which portrayed liberal South Sea sexual mores as an almost perfect inversion of strait-laced American conventions.

(Video) Wiccans-Biology Is Not Destiny

Ms Cosmides and Mr Tooby counter this model with the claim that cultural variation is much less wide than supposed. There are in fact no societies without marriage, sexual jealousy, humour, not to mention phrase-structure grammar. Of course, they concede, there remain many interesting differences between human societies. But just as interesting are the striking limits to this variation. A hero of the evolutionary psychology movement is Derek Freeman, an Australian anthropologist, who has argued that Samoan life is not so permissive after all, and that Mead was largely the gullible dupe of inventive informants.

The real question about human society, insist the evolutionary psychologists, is not why it varies, but why it stays so much the same. Their answer is that we humans have inherited a common set of psychological mechanisms from our evolutionary past. These mechanisms served specific functions as we evolved away from the chimpanzees. To comprehend ourselves fully, we therefore need to view ourselves as inheritors of intellectual abilities that proved useful to our hunter-gatherer ancestors in sub-Saharan Africa.

Of course, few humans live as hunter-gatherers any more. But, even so, say the evolutionary psychologists, the evolutionary perspective is crucial. Modern life is a product of stone-age minds and contemporary circumstances, and we will only get half the picture if we ignore our biological history.

One good illustration of this approach is the evolutionary psychologists' theory of human reasoning. Over the past couple of decades, evidence has been building up that humans are amazingly bad at solving simple logical problems. The “Wason selection task” is just one example from a huge body of experimental data. It involves cards with a letter on one side and a number on the other. Experimental subjects are asked which of the following four cards they should turn over to test the hypothesis that each vowel has an odd number on the other side: E, 3, 4, D. People are awful at this task. The right response is the first and third card, but only about 10% of normal subjects answer correctly. However, now consider a variant. Imagine you are at one of those discotheques where men must pay, but women do not have to. Everybody has a card indicating their sex on one side (M or F), and whether they have paid (P or not-P) on the other. Which cards—M, P, not-P or F—should you turn over to test whether the payment rule has been obeyed? With the problem recast in this way, many more people correctly pick the first and third cards. Even though the two tasks are structurally identical, somehow the new format makes the solution easier to see.

Ms Cosmides's theory is that this is because we have an ancestral cheater-detection module which evolved to identify those who go back on their promises. This module is intrinsically suited to the second problem, but not to the first. Of course, other explanations might strike you as equally plausible. Isn't the first problem just harder to understand than the second? But a series of further experiments conducted by Ms Cosmides suggest otherwise. The problem seems to remain hard even if posed in quite familiar terms, as long as it doesn't involve cheating, and to become easy as soon as the cheating element is introduced, even if in unfamiliar settings.

Biology, not behaviour

This cheater-detection theory illustrates a a selling-point of evolutionary psychology as against earlier biological approaches. The focus is now on underlying mechanisms, not observed behaviour, and the thesis is that these mechanisms once served a biological purpose, not that the behaviour now does. Thus, while your cheater-detection module works well as long as it sticks to its original context, there is no denying that it gets you into a mess when you try to use it to solve abstract modern problems. In the current jargon, your modules may all be “adaptations”, in that they evolved historically for a purpose, but they are not necessarily “adaptive” any more, for they can easily produce bad results in the modern world. Because of this, evolutionary psychology manages to avoid the more absurd excesses of those who tried to show that every idiosyncrasy of modern behaviour, from trainspotting to tourism, somehow helps to serve the biological ends of survival and reproduction.

Whether evolutionary psychologists manage to avoid all the mistakes made by their predecessors is less clear. Messrs Chomsky and Fodor are not the only critics with serious doubts. Few psychologists would any longer disagree that the mind contains many modules, and that this is in some sense a result of evolution. But many would deny that modules are all the mind is made of, and even more would query the value of speculation about long-lost evolutionary histories.

A double weakness

There are two worries here, one about evolutionary speculation and the other about the completeness of the modular view of mind. The first worry echoes the standard accusation that Darwinian enthusiasts are too quick to read historical purposes into every biological trait. In Stephen Jay Gould's telling phrase, they are overly fond of “just-so stories”, which differ from Kipling's fables only in their lack of good jokes. Mr Gould's immediate target here is “selfish-gene” theorists like Richard Dawkins, and it is a moot point whether he actually hits that mark. But, whatever you think of Mr Dawkins, evolutionary psychology is indeed open to the just-so charge. In principle it may seem a good idea for psychology and evolutionary theory to pool their intellectual resources. But given the paucity of hard evidence on each side, the merger often seems to achieve little more than an incitement to fabulation.

(Video) Student challenges Ben Shapiro on Transgenderism: "If it makes them happier, what's the harm?"

The trouble is not just that human brains leave no fossils, though this is certainly one problem. Just as hazardous is the lack of definite knowledge about current mental mechanisms. This makes it all too tempting to put evolutionary speculation in the place of hard psychological evidence, and so conjure mental modules out of historical myth. Take Ms Cosmides's theory about the evolution of a cheater-detection module. This is now widely accepted. But there is no independent evidence, apart from Ms Cosmides's psychological experiments, for this historical story. Moreover, other psychologists now claim to have performed new experiments which show that a cheating factor is not the crucial variable in the Wason selection task after all. Less indulgent critics will say that the flirtation with evolution has simply led Ms Cosmides up a theoretical blind alley.

A similar charge can be levelled at other prize exhibits in the gallery of evolutionary psychology. The theories of human altruism described in Mr Ridley's “The Origins of Virtue” involve any number of plausible ideas about the social practices of our hominid forefathers. But there is no real historical basis for these parables, and precious little direct evidence that today's humans display any corresponding dispositions. The ideas in Mr Ridley's book exhibit game-theoretical sophistication and much ingenuity, and are worth reading for that reason alone, but they scarcely qualify as reliable science.

Then there is sex. Reproduction is central to evolution, but there is room to wonder whether that explains the attention it gets from the more pop-oriented evolutionary psychologists. The leading light in this area is David Buss, or “The Doctor of Love”, as he is fondly termed on “The Evolutionist” web page. His book, “The Evolution of Desire” (Basic Books), reports the results of a questionnaire given to 10,000 people in 37 countries. In every country, women like rich men, and men like young attractive women. Mr Buss also explains that potential pick-ups start looking better as closing-time nears and worse again after sex. Well, maybe that is all so, and perhaps it has something to do with the evolutionary roles of the sexes. But Mr Buss tells you little about the precise mechanism behind the behaviour. Defenders of evolutionary psychology may reasonably reply that there are better practitioners than Mr Buss and more impressive examples of Darwinian accounts of human mental phenomena than singles-bar behaviour. Yet even the best samples of the evolutionary approach raise the question of its explanatory goal. Do the different examples, plucked here and there from the vast field of human mental life and behaviour, show promise of ever adding up to a coherent theory of the mind?

That question brings in the second main worry about evolutionary psychology: by emphasising the modules it leaves out the important part of the mind. Evolutionary psychologists often liken the mind to a Swiss Army knife. It contains a large number of purpose-built tools, each designed for a quite specific purpose. But this picture prompts an obvious question. Who, or what, is deciding when to open which blades? Don't you need some central intelligence to orchestrate the overall operation? Some evolutionary psychologists say no. But, while that may be true of other animals, it makes little sense for humans. For one thing, you seem to need a central intelligence to understand human moral reasoning. Even if your modules incline you towards sexual and racial discrimination, for example, it does not follow that such discrimination is either inevitable or justified. If humans are just a collection of modular reflexes, how is it that they can correct their inclinations? Humans seem to need some mental faculty that can stand back from modular promptings and tell them how to do better.

There are less elevated examples of people monitoring the outputs of their purpose-specific mental modules. You are often quite aware that your visual system is fooling you: for example, when you look at trick drawings, or indeed when you watch television. If it is possible to question modular inclinations in this way, there must be some place in the mind which transcends the modules.

To insist that there is more to the mind than modules is not to deny humans' animal heritage: no doubt a person's central intelligence is itself an evolutionary product of the past. But it does mean that evolutionary psychology, like its predecessors, is in danger of ignoring the very thing that makes humans different from other animals. Perhaps evolutionary psychologists will soon shift their focus away from peripheral modules, and start contributing to an understanding of the really hard biological problem of the structure and function of the central intellectual abilities. Until then, they are unlikely to shed more than a sidelight on the human mind or to show people much about why they live the way they do.

This article appeared in the Moreover section of the print edition under the headline "Biology isn’t destiny"

Biology isn’t destiny (1)

(Video) Dr. Debra Soh Debunks Claims of a Gender Spectrum

From the February 14th 1998 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Reuse this content

(Video) Biology Is Not Destiny

FAQs

Why is biology not destiny? ›

As I put it in the book, biology is not destiny, because biology itself can be technologically transformed, and should be transformed in the pursuit of reproductive justice and the progressive transformation of gender.

What does biology being destiny mean? ›

“So out goes the old 'biology is destiny' argument: effectively, that you get the brain you are born with – yes, it gets a bit bigger and better connected but you've got your developmental endpoint, determined by a biological blueprint unfolding along the way.

Is Biology Woman's destiny summary? ›

According to the mythmakers in this field, females are biologically handicapped by the organs and functions of motherhood. This handicap is said to go all the way back to the animal world and makes females helpless and dependent upon the superior male sex to provide for them and their young.

What is the subject biology? ›

What is biology? Biology is a branch of science that deals with living organisms and their vital processes. Biology encompasses diverse fields, including botany, conservation, ecology, evolution, genetics, marine biology, medicine, microbiology, molecular biology, physiology, and zoology.

You must know the parable about the frog that sits in a pot of water being gradually heated, allowing itself to be boiled alive: because the change

But putting that objection aside and sitting patiently as Harden increases the heat, we’ll arrive at her “highly controversial” assertion that “if siblings who differ genetically also have corresponding differences in their health or well-being or education, this is evidence that genes are causing these social inequalities.”. Explaining how social scientists make genome-wide association studies and polygenic scores, Harden writes:. With an admirable poker face, Harden writes that what behavioral geneticists really care about is environment : they want to identify the genetic causes of different life outcomes just to get them “ out of the way , so that the environment is easier to see.” This is impossible, even as an ideal, because the environment is in the genome and the genome is in the environment.. Harden never says.. Having distinguished genetic ancestry from race, however, Harden continually elides the two, as when she says that genomic research has so far been based almost entirely on “people whose recent genetic ancestry is exclusively European and who are overwhelmingly likely to identify as White.” Harden mentions this fact about genomic research in order to explain that her claims about the genetic basis of differences in intelligence apply only to differences among white-identifying people rather than to differences between whites as a group and people of other racial identities.

To honor Women's History Month, Truthdig focuses on selections from Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex," which kindled a revolution in 1949.

Like the biologist Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” (1962), “The Second Sex” kindled a revolution across the Western world that is ablaze today in the global quest for women’s human rights, as witnessed by the January 2017 Women’s March on every continent, including Antarctica.. De Beauvoir’s core proposition animates every page: The subordination and inequality of women is not our fate by reason of our biology; it is a gendered construct of society that has been accepted as natural (by most men and women) for millennia.. The reduction of women to the feminine, sexualized lesser sex is an artifice constructed of vested prejudices that deprive women (and the world) of our fullest existence.. A small book of selected extracts from “The Second Sex” has now been released under the title “The Independent Woman.” It offers a trail studded with gems of insight, from which I cull a few to comment on today’s events, findings and social thinking regarding girls and women.. … She is the Other.” Here, however, she is not referring explicitly to widespread sexual violence against women, including stalking, sexual harassment, rape, pimping and exploitation of women in prostitution, lack of reproductive freedom and other violations of women’s bodies, psyches and souls.. De Beauvoir then describes the tangled web in which women, unlike any other oppressed group, live intimately with their oppressors and often collude in their own oppression: “They live dispersed among men, tied by homes, work, economic interests and social conditions to certain men—fathers and husbands—more closely than to other women.” She describes with great nuance the detritus of inequality among intimates, banalized in popular culture as the “battle between the sexes.”. And, interestingly, girls felt more pressure to be kind than boys did, reflecting society’s stubborn, sex-based stereotypes of what is valued in women but not necessarily in men.. “Power,” “leadership,” and “honesty” were positive attributes in men, whereas “power” and “ambition” were largely seen as negative in women.. Just half of respondents chose “independence” in women and “caring” in men as positive traits.. Her prescription: Increase the number of women in leadership roles (something that white, married conservative women—identifying more with white men than other women—appear reluctant to do, judging from their voting patterns).. Since “The Second Sex,” the ascendancy of women has proven to be both more challenging than just imitating successful, “autonomous” men, as even aspiring 11- and 12-year-old girls know, and more complex than de Beauvoir proposed.. Recent studies of women in leadership in public and private sectors have concluded that women in high-level positions and on boards deal more effectively with risk , focus more strategically on long-term priorities, and are more successful financially.. Experimental studies of women and men negotiating post-conflict agreements have found that all-male groups take riskier, less empathetic and more aggressive positions, and they break down more quickly than negotiations that include women .. Parsing these findings, many women, educated like men and in comparable positions of influence, integrate qualities of their socialized development—compassion, not acting rashly or aggressively, a sense of responsibility—as assets into their leadership.. The lesson in this, insufficiently probed in “The Second Sex” as reflected in “The Independent Woman,” is that men need to work as hard and as persistently for their liberation from masculinism (especially the normative sexual objectification of women) as women have strived for our equality.

Posts about biology isn’t destiny written by Frank Brown Cloud

Foster goes on to say that in his experience, empathy, trying to imagine what life must be like for individuals of other species, changed his diet.. Later in his project, Foster writes of a moment — while he was trying to live as an otter, swimming underwater and hunting raw fish with his hands — when a fish swam into his mouth.. Otters, like humans, are heterotrophs.. But more likely, I feel, is that women are more pressured to consider the food they put into their bodies.. The story is less about a woman who wants to be vegetarian, than one who wants to be a vegetable.

ome years ago I gave a talk at my first alma mater, the nursery school I attended at the ages of 3 and 4. The subject was new research on adult change, showing that human beings are not prisoners of childhood after all. When I finished, one of my teachers -- then 96 -- rose and said: ''A very nice talk, dear, but as far as I'm concerned you haven't changed a bit since you were in my class. A bit taller, is all.''

By CAROL TAVRIS THREE SEDUCTIVE IDEAS By Jerome Kagan.. : Harvard University Press.. Starting at the age of 2, children begin to judge their behavior in terms of good and bad, right and wrong; without. this inborn ''moral sense,'' Kagan has argued, children could not be socialized.. The greatest contribution of ''Three Seductive Ideas'' is its spirited and eloquent defense of psychology in a world of biological determinism.. But Kagan argues that what we feel, who we are or what we are thinking cannot be reduced to the workings of brain circuits or physiological measures of arousal.

Kimberly A. Hamlin. From Eve to Evolution: Darwin, Science, and Women’s Rights in Gilded Age America (Chicago University Press, 2014) 238 pages. Review by Lilian Calles Barger To address the eternal “woman question,” the emerging modern feminism of the Gilded Age turned to Charles Darwin for answers. In From Eve to Evolution, Kimberly

In From Eve to Evolution , Kimberly A. Hamlin’s fascinating intellectual history uncovers how the new evolutionary science provided multiple arguments by which women advanced the cause of women’s rights and equality in the home and society.. Charles Darwin’s theory, against his own conservative masculinist views, turned traditional views of women upside down.. Sex difference, as described by many male scientists, pointed to female intellectual inferiority.. The Genesis story, as classically interpreted, placed the blame for the “Fall of Man” on Eve, which required woman’s subordination and the suffering of motherhood.. From Eve to Evolution applies a useful gender analysis to the history of Darwinian thought in America thus challenging feminist readings of Darwinian science as anti-feminist.. The ideas teased out by the author are still very much in play as the areas of science that focus on gender and the brain continue to offer findings and interpretations of gender differences, with pushback from both feminists and social constructionist.

Source: International Socialist Review, December 1971, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 7-11, 35-39; Transcribed: by Daniel Gaido; Proofed: and corrected by Chris Clayton; Public Domain: this text is free of copyright.

Another familiar argument supposed to prove the natural superiority and dominance of the male sex over the female sex is based on the fact that in some species (although by no means all) the males are larger than the females or have more developed muscle power.. There is no need to dwell here upon the enormous labor record of primitive women which is set forth in detail in my article, “The Myth of Women’s Inferiority.” While men were occupied in seeking out animals as game food, it was the women who carried out the diverse forms of production from leather-making, pot-making, and handicrafts of all kinds to construction, medicine, and the development of the earliest forms of science.. The fact that some women in primitive regions became as oppressed as the women of patriarchal civilized nations does not prove that women have always been oppressed.. According to Firestone, female oppression is older than recorded history; it goes all the way back “to the animal kingdom itself.” (p. 2) Because of female biology, she says, productive work was beyond women’s strength-showing her ignorance of the extensive labor record of primitive women.. Let me emphasize: It was not the occupation of hunting that gave men superiority over women - it was the introduction of private property, class divisions, and the patriarchal family that brought about male supremacy and the oppression of women.

Videos

1. Transition-Belielf that Biology is destiny
(The Dirt From Dirt)
2. 10,000 More Years of the Scientific Method
(exurb1a)
3. Biology is not destiny.
(Mar Healy)
4. Neil deGrasse Tyson SHUTS DOWN Ben Shapiro
(The Young Turks)
5. Atheist Defends Biologist From An Atheist Whack
(TheSkepTick)
6. Andrew Neil 'destroys' Ben Shapiro in BBC interview
(Guardian News)

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Greg Kuvalis

Last Updated: 09/15/2022

Views: 6385

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (75 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Greg Kuvalis

Birthday: 1996-12-20

Address: 53157 Trantow Inlet, Townemouth, FL 92564-0267

Phone: +68218650356656

Job: IT Representative

Hobby: Knitting, Amateur radio, Skiing, Running, Mountain biking, Slacklining, Electronics

Introduction: My name is Greg Kuvalis, I am a witty, spotless, beautiful, charming, delightful, thankful, beautiful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.