One author summed up the basic idea of sociobiology this way: "A person is only a gene's way of making another gene" (Konner, 1985, p. 48). Sociobiology (of which evolutionary psychology is a subfield that particularly concerns humans) can be thought of as having, like any research program, a "hard core" of problem solving strategies that provide possible answers to vexing research questions, and a "protective belt" of promising research questions to be addressed by providing actual answers to these questions. The protective belt structures our ignorance by identifying research questions that must be addressed if the research program is to advance. Whereas the actual answers that arise from the protective belt may be wrong, the hard core (by methodological fiat) is never wrong--any potential negative evidence is to be blamed on faulty auxiliary assumptions rather than on the theory itself.
Sociobiology can be thought of as a special case of the adaptationist program, which assumes that all phenotypic features (or characters) of contemporary organisms result from the fact that these features allowed the organisms' predecessors to produce more offspring in a prehistoric environment (Lewontin, 1979). "Narrow sociobiology" is defined as the study of evolution and of function, and chiefly applies to non-human animals in which cultural transmission is not an important variable intervening between possible and actual explanations (Kitcher, 1988). The hard core of narrow sociobiology includes the following laws or problem solving strategies, the basics of evolutionary theory:
Levels 1 and 2 of Wilson's ladder together comprise the adaptationist program that Lewontin (1979) considers illegitimate, even in narrow sociobiology. According to the adaptationist program, natural selection generates optimal phenotypes. It is hard to find an interpretation of the adaptationist program (i.e., an argument for optimality) that is both nontrivial and true. The slogan "survival of the fittest" is not true, for, as Kitcher (1987) argues, "There may be no optimal phenotype, or the optimal phenotype may be coded by a heterozygote, or, if there are more than two alleles at a locus, the fitness relations among the genotypes may prevent the fixation of the fittest" (p. 66). Moreover, selection is not the only evolutionary force--there is also chance, the effects of which can be both large and permanent in small populations. In view of these considerations, a panglossian interpretation of the effects of natural selection ("we live in the best of all possible worlds") would be mistaken.
Most sociobiologists are genetic determinists, though some are more subtle than others. There are three waystations along the high road to genetic determinism: the doctrine of genetic fixity, the doctrine of innate capacity, and the doctrine of statistical variation. Each doctrine is more sophisticated than its predecessor (Lewontin, 1991).
Evolutionary ideas have been applied to human social relationships in a number of areas. Chief among these are mate selection and aggression.
Konner, M. (1985, October 6). One gene at a time. The New York Times Book Review, 48.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewontin, R. C. (1979). Sociobiology as an adaptationist program. Behavioral Science, 24, 5-14.
Lewontin, R. C. (1991). Biology as ideology: The doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper Collins.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
This paper claims that evolutionary psychology represents an improvement over its forerunner, sociobiology, in that evolutionary psychology does not foreswear the mental, and does not aim to map human nature. By Melissa Seltin.
This paper discusses why evolutionary psychology should complement rather than replace sociobiology. By James Brody.
This paper is the authoritative introduction on the web to the field of evolutionary psychology. By Leda Cosmides and John Tooby at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology.
This paper discusses the evidence and arguments in evolutionary psychology for the innateness of psychological traits. By Yehouda Harpaz.
Here is a theory on the evolution of cognition, expressive culture, music, technology, and the self. By William L. Benzon and David G. Hays.
This is an article in Skeptic Magazine. By Frank Miele.
Here is an interview in The Evolutionist with a leading evolutionary psychologist.
Here is the full text of the classic work. By Charles Darwin.
This is a scholarly discussion of evolutionary psychology. By Mario F. Heilmann.
This paper is an introduction to sociobiological theories. By C. George Boeree.
This page links to three servers related to human ethology: the University of Vienna Institute for Human Biology; the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology; and the International Society for Human Ethology.
This website takes an evolutionary approach to cognitive science. By the University of Sussex School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences.
This website includes links and an overview of evolutionary psychology. By William A. Spriggs.
This organization's website has a number of useful links.
This psychologist's website contains pages on a wide range of topics. By Al Cheyne.
This website links to a number of papers by various authors on important issues in evolutionary biology.
This entry in The Encyclopedia Britannica is a useful introduction with a number of links (requires site licence to view).
These entries in the MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences are written by leading experts. By R. I. M. Dunbar; Leda Cosmides and John Tooby.
A list of suggested readings on this topic is also available. By G. Scott Acton.
Last modified May 1998
Comments?
Back to the Great Ideas in Personality Home Page