Skip to main content
Log in

Evolutionary Psychology, Human Universals, and the Standard Social Science Model

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proponents of evolutionary psychology take the existence of humanuniversals to constitute decisive evidence in favor of their view. Ifthe same social norms are found in culture after culture, we have goodreason to believe that they are innate, they argue. In this paper Ipropose an alternative explanation for the existence of humanuniversals, which does not depend on them being the product of inbuiltpsychological adaptations. Following the work of Brian Skyrms, I suggestthat if a particular convention possesses even a very small advantageover competitors, whatever the reason for that advantage, we shouldexpect it to become the norm almost everywhere. Tiny advantages aretranslated into very large basins of attraction, in the language of gametheory. If this is so, universal norms are not evidence for innatepsychological adaptations at all. Having shown that the existence ofuniversals is consistent with the so-called Standard Social ScienceModel, I turn to a consideration of the evidence, to show that thisstyle of explanation is preferable to the evolutionary explanation, atleast with regard to patterns of gender inequality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock, J.: 2001, The Triumph of Sociobiology, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S.: 2003, The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain, Allen Lane, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D.: 1994, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connellan, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Batki, A. and Ahluwalia, J.: 2000, 'Sex Differences in Human Neonatal Social Perception', Infant Behavior and Development 23, 113–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M. and Wilson, M.: 1988, 'Evolutionary Social Psychology and Family Homicide', Science 242, 519–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1985, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, TheMIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1969, Convention: A Philosophical Study, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J.: 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J.: 1988, Did Darwin Get it Right? Essays on Games, Sex and Evolution, Penguin Books, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.: 2000, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, William Heinemann, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okin, S.M.: 1989, Justice, Gender, and the Family, Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S.: 2002, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Penguin/Allen Lane, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B.: 1996, Evolution of the Social Contract, Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levy, N. Evolutionary Psychology, Human Universals, and the Standard Social Science Model. Biology & Philosophy 19, 459–472 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036111.64561.63

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036111.64561.63

Navigation