Volgens Tinbergen moeten we om de oorzakelijkheid van een bepaald gedrag te begrijpen dus
vanuit alle vier de perspectieven een verklaring hebben. In de tabel hieronder hebben we de vier
vragen van Tinbergen schematisch vormgegeven. Ook zijn hier de
termen ultimaat en proximaat aan toegevoegd. De vragen naar (1) mechanisme en (2)
ontwikkeling zijn proximate vragen, omdat ze gaan over de directe oorzaken van bepaald gedrag.
De vragen naar (3) functie en (4) fylogenese gaan over ultimate oorzaken en gaan daarmee over
de diepere achterliggende evolutionaire oorzaken van een bepaald gedrag.
,Chapter 1 – Introduction to evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology applies the principles of Darwinian natural selection to the study of the
human mind. The principal assumption is that the human mind should be considered to be an organ
that was designed by natural selection to guide the individual in making decisions that aid survival
and reproduction, but equally an organ that is designed to learn. We are not necessarily the
beneficiaries of our own behaviour, but our genes are.
Placing the individual at the middle of the picture doesn’t always make it complete. Modern
evolutionary theory sees the individual as an ephemeral and transient actor in the theatre of
existence, acting out a script that wasn’t their writing Genes aren’t for our benefit, we are for
theirs.
Ultimate questions: Questions that ask why a particular behaviour or organ exists at all.
Proximate questions: How does a particular behaviour develop?
History of evolutionary thinking
Thales (624-545 BC): Tried to explain the origins of life in natural as opposed to supernatural terms.
He proposed that life evolved out of simpler elements with the most basic element, water.
Empedocles (495-435 BC): Suggested that in the beginning the world was full of bodily organs that
occasionally came together and joined up driven by love. The results were monstrosities and died
out, but a minority went on to reproduce and create copies.
Aristotle (384-322 BC): Largely killed off evolutionary thinking and proposed that each species
occupied a particular space in a hierarchical structure known as The Great Chain of Being/scala
naturae. This was adopted by the Christian religion in the medieval period and included natural and
supernatural beings. TGCOB was not just descriptive, but also prescriptive.
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802): Wrote that all living things could have emerged from a common
ancestor and suggested that competition might be the driving force behind evolution.
Lamarck (1744-1829): Proposed that changes in an environment could lead to changes in an animal’s
behaviour, which might lead to an organ being used more or less (first law). The second law was that
these changes were heritable. Now most agree that this is incorrect, with some exceptions, like
epigenetics.
Darwin and natural selection
Natural selection depends on heritable variation and differential reproductive success. Copying
errors can be the result of f.e. radiation changing the structure of DNA. The mutations that affect
natural selection are those in the germ cells. Copying errors rarely have positive consequences
They would either have no effect or lead to the individual failing to pass on genes. But, when the
error is actually better fitted to the environment, the individual will tend to reproduce more offspring
and the error will soon become the norm. In some cases, the new lineage might outcompete the old
and replace it. In other cases, particularly in case of geographic separation, both versions can co-exist
and ultimately form different species. Sexually reproducing species combine the genes of two
individuals during reproduction, which means the offspring will always be different from both. The
increased variation produced by sex is thought to be one of the reasons why sex evolved in the first
place.
Mendel and genetics
Mendel conducted breeding experiments with peas. One of his greatest insights was that inheritance
was particulate. This means traits aren’t just a blend of the parents’, but one of each. The reason
,why some characteristics can seem blended is because they are controlled by multiple genes – for
traits controlled by one single gene, it is always particulate.
From evolution to evolutionary psychology
Darwin also believed that natural selection had a role to play in the evolution of behaviour. He
appeared to see the human mind as being explainable by the same fundamental physical laws as
other bodily organs, in terms of mechanistic principles. Materialism is the approach that sees the
mind as being ultimately reducible to the activity of the brain or the mind is the information
processing activity of the brain. Materialism is important to evolutionary psychology because if the
mind is just the activity of the brain, then the brain as a physical organ is subject to the pressures of
natural selection.
Francis Galton (1822-1911): He was very influenced by the theory of natural selection. He was a very
important figure in the history of psychology. He proposed that character and intelligence were
inherited traits and developed some of the first intelligence tests He is known in some respects as
the father of psychometrics. He also anticipated the method of experimental psychology. He also
proposed that traits that would have been useful in ancestral times might be less useful in modern
times. This is a familiar theory in modern evolutionary psychology. It is relatively uncontroversial and
should be judged as a scientific theory that stands or fails on the basis of the evidence. Galton’s
attempt to apply his scientific was more controversial – he suggested that society might improve by
engaging in selective breeding, what would later come to be known as eugenics.
Sigmund Freud: For many the embodiment of cultural relativism, thanks to the emphasis he placed
on the role of parents and family in shaping a person. Unlike many subsequent psychologists he was
interested in ultimate questions – why people behave like they do, not just how. Many of these
accounts were non-Darwinian, but some of his ideas are much more in line with recent Darwinian
psychology. F.e. the ID as set of inborn desires has many parallels with evolutionary theory, and his
view that our conscious selves might be completely unaware of our real motives.
William James (1842 – 1910): One of the most influential psychologists. He made the distinction
between short- and long-term memory, studied attention and perception and was very interested in
applying Darwin’s ideas to human psychology. He theorized that human behaviour might be
characterised by more instincts than other animals. The concept of instinct was dropped from social
scientists’ terminology because it was too imprecise. A lot of instinctive behaviour can also be
modified through experience – so distinguishing the crossing line between instinct and learning is
difficult.
John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, two of the instigators of the rise in evolutionary psychological
thinking, suggest that beginning in the early twentieth century the social sciences adopted a
particular view of humans which they called the Standard Social Sciences Model (SSSM) – or
cultural relativism. This claims the following:
Humans are born as blank slates
Human behaviour is infinitely malleable
Culture is an autonomous force and exists independently of people
Human behaviour is determined by a process of learning, socialisation and indoctrination
Learning processes are general in that they can be applied to a variety of phenomena
It can be seen in part as a reaction to some of the more extreme claims of the biological determinists
of the late 19th and early 20th century. Many took Darwin’s theories and used them to demonstrate
that certain races were ‘less highly evolved’ than others. This shows a misunderstanding of Darwin’s
idea. The notion that some organisms are more evolved than others and thus more important dates
, back to the Great Chain of Being, and Darwinian thinking explicitly denies this. Two species from the
same common ancestor each have their own path of evolution, and each species lacks the
evolutionary trajectory of the other.
Cultural Relativism: The founder was Franz Boas. He argued that many differences between people
were due to differences in their culture and if one wished to understand them one must understand
the culture. Many social scientists developed an almost pathological fear of biological explanations
for behaviour (biophobia). Reasons for this are f.e. that once a scientific discipline is established it’s
difficult for researchers to consider alternative explanations, or that atrocities in the Second World
War made it difficult to explore biological explanations of human nature without being seen as
advocating genetic determinism and eugenics.
Learning theory and its shortcomings
Despite training animals, they would keep reverting to instinctive behaviours (pigs using snouts to
root dollars instead of putting them in piggy banks). The interpretation of the results was that
instinctual behaviour interferes with the attempt to train animals using Skinnerian principles, largely
ignoring the fact that these instincts represent evolved solutions to ecological problems – it’s what
the animals were designed to do. The gene-centred view of life mentioned being one of the theories.
A proper understanding needs work because it’s counterintuitive.
From sociobiology to evolutionary psychology
The first serious attempt to apply evolutionary thinking to psychology was led by E.O. Wilson, who
published Sociobiology: The new synthesis in 1975. This book laid the foundations for the modern
evolutionary approach to the study of behaviour. Sociobiology developed as a branch of biology, not
social sciences and was defined by Wilson as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social
behaviour – biological not necessarily being equated to genetics. He argued that if behaviour affects
reproductive success in a predictable way, and if particular behaviours are influenced by genes then
natural selection would to some extent shape behaviour.
The Santa Barbara school
Leda Cosmides and John Tooby set up the Centre for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of
Santa Barbara. Together with the publication of The Adapted Mind sparked interest in evolutionary
psychology. Evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain human behaviour in terms of the
underlying computations that occur within the mind. This was an important addition from
sociobiology because it meant that evolutionary psychologists as well as studying phenomena
entertained by sociobiologists, they could also study phenomena that were the preserve of cognitive
psychologists, with a thorough background of evolutionary logic. Tooby and Cosmides outlined 5
principles:
1. The brain is a physical system
2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems our ancestors faced
during our species’ evolutionary history
3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg
4. Different neural circuits are specialised for solving different adaptive problems
5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind
Principle 2 and 5 relate to the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness (EEA). This is not a specific
time, but rather a particular environment the organism is adapted to. Many (evolutionary)
psychologists disagree with some or all points.
vanuit alle vier de perspectieven een verklaring hebben. In de tabel hieronder hebben we de vier
vragen van Tinbergen schematisch vormgegeven. Ook zijn hier de
termen ultimaat en proximaat aan toegevoegd. De vragen naar (1) mechanisme en (2)
ontwikkeling zijn proximate vragen, omdat ze gaan over de directe oorzaken van bepaald gedrag.
De vragen naar (3) functie en (4) fylogenese gaan over ultimate oorzaken en gaan daarmee over
de diepere achterliggende evolutionaire oorzaken van een bepaald gedrag.
,Chapter 1 – Introduction to evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology applies the principles of Darwinian natural selection to the study of the
human mind. The principal assumption is that the human mind should be considered to be an organ
that was designed by natural selection to guide the individual in making decisions that aid survival
and reproduction, but equally an organ that is designed to learn. We are not necessarily the
beneficiaries of our own behaviour, but our genes are.
Placing the individual at the middle of the picture doesn’t always make it complete. Modern
evolutionary theory sees the individual as an ephemeral and transient actor in the theatre of
existence, acting out a script that wasn’t their writing Genes aren’t for our benefit, we are for
theirs.
Ultimate questions: Questions that ask why a particular behaviour or organ exists at all.
Proximate questions: How does a particular behaviour develop?
History of evolutionary thinking
Thales (624-545 BC): Tried to explain the origins of life in natural as opposed to supernatural terms.
He proposed that life evolved out of simpler elements with the most basic element, water.
Empedocles (495-435 BC): Suggested that in the beginning the world was full of bodily organs that
occasionally came together and joined up driven by love. The results were monstrosities and died
out, but a minority went on to reproduce and create copies.
Aristotle (384-322 BC): Largely killed off evolutionary thinking and proposed that each species
occupied a particular space in a hierarchical structure known as The Great Chain of Being/scala
naturae. This was adopted by the Christian religion in the medieval period and included natural and
supernatural beings. TGCOB was not just descriptive, but also prescriptive.
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802): Wrote that all living things could have emerged from a common
ancestor and suggested that competition might be the driving force behind evolution.
Lamarck (1744-1829): Proposed that changes in an environment could lead to changes in an animal’s
behaviour, which might lead to an organ being used more or less (first law). The second law was that
these changes were heritable. Now most agree that this is incorrect, with some exceptions, like
epigenetics.
Darwin and natural selection
Natural selection depends on heritable variation and differential reproductive success. Copying
errors can be the result of f.e. radiation changing the structure of DNA. The mutations that affect
natural selection are those in the germ cells. Copying errors rarely have positive consequences
They would either have no effect or lead to the individual failing to pass on genes. But, when the
error is actually better fitted to the environment, the individual will tend to reproduce more offspring
and the error will soon become the norm. In some cases, the new lineage might outcompete the old
and replace it. In other cases, particularly in case of geographic separation, both versions can co-exist
and ultimately form different species. Sexually reproducing species combine the genes of two
individuals during reproduction, which means the offspring will always be different from both. The
increased variation produced by sex is thought to be one of the reasons why sex evolved in the first
place.
Mendel and genetics
Mendel conducted breeding experiments with peas. One of his greatest insights was that inheritance
was particulate. This means traits aren’t just a blend of the parents’, but one of each. The reason
,why some characteristics can seem blended is because they are controlled by multiple genes – for
traits controlled by one single gene, it is always particulate.
From evolution to evolutionary psychology
Darwin also believed that natural selection had a role to play in the evolution of behaviour. He
appeared to see the human mind as being explainable by the same fundamental physical laws as
other bodily organs, in terms of mechanistic principles. Materialism is the approach that sees the
mind as being ultimately reducible to the activity of the brain or the mind is the information
processing activity of the brain. Materialism is important to evolutionary psychology because if the
mind is just the activity of the brain, then the brain as a physical organ is subject to the pressures of
natural selection.
Francis Galton (1822-1911): He was very influenced by the theory of natural selection. He was a very
important figure in the history of psychology. He proposed that character and intelligence were
inherited traits and developed some of the first intelligence tests He is known in some respects as
the father of psychometrics. He also anticipated the method of experimental psychology. He also
proposed that traits that would have been useful in ancestral times might be less useful in modern
times. This is a familiar theory in modern evolutionary psychology. It is relatively uncontroversial and
should be judged as a scientific theory that stands or fails on the basis of the evidence. Galton’s
attempt to apply his scientific was more controversial – he suggested that society might improve by
engaging in selective breeding, what would later come to be known as eugenics.
Sigmund Freud: For many the embodiment of cultural relativism, thanks to the emphasis he placed
on the role of parents and family in shaping a person. Unlike many subsequent psychologists he was
interested in ultimate questions – why people behave like they do, not just how. Many of these
accounts were non-Darwinian, but some of his ideas are much more in line with recent Darwinian
psychology. F.e. the ID as set of inborn desires has many parallels with evolutionary theory, and his
view that our conscious selves might be completely unaware of our real motives.
William James (1842 – 1910): One of the most influential psychologists. He made the distinction
between short- and long-term memory, studied attention and perception and was very interested in
applying Darwin’s ideas to human psychology. He theorized that human behaviour might be
characterised by more instincts than other animals. The concept of instinct was dropped from social
scientists’ terminology because it was too imprecise. A lot of instinctive behaviour can also be
modified through experience – so distinguishing the crossing line between instinct and learning is
difficult.
John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, two of the instigators of the rise in evolutionary psychological
thinking, suggest that beginning in the early twentieth century the social sciences adopted a
particular view of humans which they called the Standard Social Sciences Model (SSSM) – or
cultural relativism. This claims the following:
Humans are born as blank slates
Human behaviour is infinitely malleable
Culture is an autonomous force and exists independently of people
Human behaviour is determined by a process of learning, socialisation and indoctrination
Learning processes are general in that they can be applied to a variety of phenomena
It can be seen in part as a reaction to some of the more extreme claims of the biological determinists
of the late 19th and early 20th century. Many took Darwin’s theories and used them to demonstrate
that certain races were ‘less highly evolved’ than others. This shows a misunderstanding of Darwin’s
idea. The notion that some organisms are more evolved than others and thus more important dates
, back to the Great Chain of Being, and Darwinian thinking explicitly denies this. Two species from the
same common ancestor each have their own path of evolution, and each species lacks the
evolutionary trajectory of the other.
Cultural Relativism: The founder was Franz Boas. He argued that many differences between people
were due to differences in their culture and if one wished to understand them one must understand
the culture. Many social scientists developed an almost pathological fear of biological explanations
for behaviour (biophobia). Reasons for this are f.e. that once a scientific discipline is established it’s
difficult for researchers to consider alternative explanations, or that atrocities in the Second World
War made it difficult to explore biological explanations of human nature without being seen as
advocating genetic determinism and eugenics.
Learning theory and its shortcomings
Despite training animals, they would keep reverting to instinctive behaviours (pigs using snouts to
root dollars instead of putting them in piggy banks). The interpretation of the results was that
instinctual behaviour interferes with the attempt to train animals using Skinnerian principles, largely
ignoring the fact that these instincts represent evolved solutions to ecological problems – it’s what
the animals were designed to do. The gene-centred view of life mentioned being one of the theories.
A proper understanding needs work because it’s counterintuitive.
From sociobiology to evolutionary psychology
The first serious attempt to apply evolutionary thinking to psychology was led by E.O. Wilson, who
published Sociobiology: The new synthesis in 1975. This book laid the foundations for the modern
evolutionary approach to the study of behaviour. Sociobiology developed as a branch of biology, not
social sciences and was defined by Wilson as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social
behaviour – biological not necessarily being equated to genetics. He argued that if behaviour affects
reproductive success in a predictable way, and if particular behaviours are influenced by genes then
natural selection would to some extent shape behaviour.
The Santa Barbara school
Leda Cosmides and John Tooby set up the Centre for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of
Santa Barbara. Together with the publication of The Adapted Mind sparked interest in evolutionary
psychology. Evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain human behaviour in terms of the
underlying computations that occur within the mind. This was an important addition from
sociobiology because it meant that evolutionary psychologists as well as studying phenomena
entertained by sociobiologists, they could also study phenomena that were the preserve of cognitive
psychologists, with a thorough background of evolutionary logic. Tooby and Cosmides outlined 5
principles:
1. The brain is a physical system
2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems our ancestors faced
during our species’ evolutionary history
3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg
4. Different neural circuits are specialised for solving different adaptive problems
5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind
Principle 2 and 5 relate to the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness (EEA). This is not a specific
time, but rather a particular environment the organism is adapted to. Many (evolutionary)
psychologists disagree with some or all points.
