Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 459–472

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

  • Neil Levy
Article

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.

Evolutionary psychology Game theory Human universals Standard Social Science Model Social norms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock, J.: 2001, The Triumph of Sociobiology, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen, S.: 2003, The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain, Allen Lane, London.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D.: 1994, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Daly, M. and Wilson, M.: 1988, 'Evolutionary Social Psychology and Family Homicide', Science 242, 519–524.Google Scholar
  6. Kitcher, P.: 1985, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, TheMIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D.: 1969, Convention: A Philosophical Study, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  8. Maynard Smith, J.: 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Maynard Smith, J.: 1988, Did Darwin Get it Right? Essays on Games, Sex and Evolution, Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, G.: 2000, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, William Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
  11. Okin, S.M.: 1989, Justice, Gender, and the Family, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Pinker, S.: 2002, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Penguin/Allen Lane, London.Google Scholar
  13. Skyrms, B.: 1996, Evolution of the Social Contract, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Levy
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations