Evolutionary Psychology and the Problem of Neural Plasticity

Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 282)


Evolutionary psychology as commonly presented is committed to the view that our cognitive architecture consists of a set of genetically pre-specified, domain specific, computational modules that are adaptations to the environment of our Pleistocene ancestors. These commitments yield a picture in which the underlying computational design of the human mind is genetically transmitted while cultural variation results from differential experiential inputs being processed through this common architecture. This view has been criticized from a developmental point of view. This paper develops some of those criticisms specifically as they relate to the plasticity of neural structures and their responsiveness to social interactions. My criticism is directed at common Evolutionary Psychologists’ arguments for the claim that the basic features of human cognitive architecture are adaptations to the environment of our Pleistocene ancestors, the so-called EEA. In best case scenarios the confirmation of adaptive hypotheses involves identifying the specific causal mechanisms of selection. This is not possible in the case of Evolutionary Psychology. Instead claims that certain computational modules evolved as adaptations in the ancestral environment are supported by their cross-cultural occurrence in modern populations together with their apparent complex design. However, evidence suggests that behavior itself, and cultural practices, influence the development of neural structures and the cognitive processes they instantiate. In this paper I review evidence of the effects of culturally-mediated behaviors on cognitive architecture, specifically the effects of literacy and musicianship. These examples are of interest because they are most likely cultural practices that have developed since the Pleistocene. This evidence suggests possible alternative explanations for the presence of complex cognitive mechanisms aside from the Evolutionary Psychologists claim that they must be adaptations to the EEA. In other words, there is some reason to believe that our cognitive architecture differs in significant ways from that of our Pleistocene ancestors due to the effects of culturally-mediated neural plasticity. According to this alternative view, while genes are playing a role in the development of the brain, they do not really encode its neural architecture. When selection favors one set of neural characteristics over alternatives, the genes that played a role in the development of those structures are passed on. But this does not guarantee replication of the structures themselves. What is being selected? Not genes, but organisms with certain neurological and behavioral tendencies in particular environments. Variation in the genetic determinants of neurological structure is not a necessary condition for natural selection to act on behavior. The necessary condition, as Darwin originally put the point, is that traits are heritable. Certainly heritability implies some genetic transmission between generations. But heritability of neural structure requires more than a genetic determinant because neural structures are so plastic. Some regulation of the experiential environment in which those genes act is also necessary. This suggests that an adequate account of the evolution of behavior requires a multi-level approach that recognizes that gene action and social behavior are related by a kind of causal reciprocity. Such an account would be quite different than the Evolutionary Psychologists’ model of culture being layered over the top of an underlying cognitive computer that is genetically propagated.


  1. Asbury, C. and Rich, B. (Eds.) (2008): Learning, Arts, and the Brain. The Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, H.C. and Kurzban, R. (2006): Modularity in Cognition: Framing the Debate. Psychological Review 113: 628–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolger, D.J., Perfetti, C.A., and Schneider, W. (2005): Cross-Cultural Effect on the Brain Revisited: Universal Structures Plus Writing System Variation. Human Brain Mapping 25: 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandon, R.N. (1990): Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buller, D.J. (2005): Adapting Minds. Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buller, D.J., and Hardcastle, V.G. (2000): Evolutionary Psychology, Meet Developmental Neurobiology: Against Promiscuous Modularity. Brain and Mind 1: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (1998): Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In: Bechtel, W. and Graham, G. (Eds.): A Companion to Cognitive Science. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 506–517.Google Scholar
  8. Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (1997): Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer. Center for Evolutionary Psychology. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html (retrieved March 2008).
  9. Dehaene, S. (2005): Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic; The ‘neuronal recycling’ hypothesis. In: Dehaene, S, Duhamel, J., Hauser, M., and Rizzolatti, G. (Eds.): From Monkey Brain to Human Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 133–157.Google Scholar
  10. Dehaene, S. and Cohen, L. (2007): Cultural Recycling of Cortical Maps. Neuron 56: 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donald, M. (1991): Origins of the Modern Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Donald, M. (2000): The Central Role of Culture in Cognitive Evolution: A Reflection on the Myth of the ‘Isolated Mind’. In: Nucci L., Saxe, G., and Turiel, E. (Eds.): Culture, Thought & Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  13. Dupré, J. (2001): Human Nature and the Limits of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elman, J.L. (1998): Connectionism, Artificial Life, and Dynamical Systems. In: Bechtel, W. and Graham, G. (Eds.): A Companion to Cognitive Science. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 488–505.Google Scholar
  15. Elbert, T., Heim, S., and Rockstroh, B. (2001): Neural Plasticity and Development. In: Nelson, C.A. and Luciana, M. (Eds.): Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 191–202.Google Scholar
  16. Fodor, J.A. (1983): The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J.A. (2000): The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Norton, A., and Schlaug, G. (2008): Practicing a Musical Instrument in Childhood is Associated with Enhanced Verbal Ability and Nonverbal Reasoning. PLoS ONE 3 (10): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffiths, P.E. and Gray, R.D. (2001): Darwinism and Developmental Systems. In: Oyama, S., Griffiths, P.E., and Gray, R.D. (Eds.): Cycles of Contingency. Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
  20. Ho, Y., Cheung, M., and Chan, A. (2003): Music Training Improves Verbal but not Visual Memory: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Explorations in Children. Neuropsychology 17: 439–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James, W. (1898): Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2000): Why Babies’ Brains are not Swiss Army Knives. In: Rose, H. and Rose, S. (Eds.): Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Harmony Books, pp. 173–188.Google Scholar
  23. Machery, E. (2007): Massive Modularity and Brain Evolution. Philosophy of Science 74: 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohammed, A.H., Zhu, S. W., Darmopil, S., Hjerling-Leffler, J., Ernfors, P., Winblad, B., Diamond, M.C., Eriksson, P.S., and Bogdanovic, N. (2002): Environmental Enrichment and the Brain. Progress in Brain Research: 138: 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oyama, S. (2001): Terms in Tension: What Do You Do When All the Good Words Are Taken? In: Oyama, S., Griffiths P.E., and Gray, R.D. (Eds.): Cycles of Contingency. Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 195–218.Google Scholar
  26. Pascual-Leone, A. (2001): The Brain That Plays Music and Is Changed by It. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 930: 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinker, S. (1997): How the Mind Works. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  28. Pinker, S, and Bloom, P. (2001): Natural Language and Natural Selection. In: Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L, and Tooby, J. (Eds.): The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 451–494.Google Scholar
  29. Ramachandran, V. S. and Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (2000): Phantom Limbs and Neural Plasticity. Archives of Neurology 57: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rapaport, W.J. (2003): Cognitive Science. In: Ralston, A., Reilly, E.D., and Hemmendinger, D. (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Computer Science (4 th ed.). Grove’s Dictionaries, pp. 227–233.Google Scholar
  31. Richardson, R.C. (2007): Evolutionary Psychology as Maladaptive Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenzweig, M.R. (1996): Aspects of the Search for the Neural Mechanisms of Memory. Annual Review of Psychology 47: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenzweig, M.R. (2003): Effects of Differential Experience on the Brain and Behavior. Developmental Neuropsychology 24: 523–540.Google Scholar
  34. Samuels, R. (1998): Evolutionary Psychology and the Massive Modularity Hypothesis. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 49: 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarnecki, J. (2007): Developmental Objections to Evolutionary Modularity. Biology and Philosophy 22: 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlaug G. (2001): The Brain of Musicians: A Model for Functional and Structural Plasticity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 930: 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlaug G, Norton A, Overy K, Winner E. (2005): Effects of Music Training on the Child’s Brain and Cognitive Development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1060: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sperber, D. (2001): In Defense of Massive Modularity. In Dupoux, E. (Ed.): Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development. Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tan, L.H., Laird, A.R., Li, K., and Fox, P.T. (2005): Neuroanatomical Correlates of Phonological Processing of Chinese Characters and Alphabetic Words: A Meta-Analysis. Human Brain Mapping 25: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2001): The Psychological Foundations of Culture. In: Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (Eds.): The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 451–494.Google Scholar
  41. Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2005): Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology. In: Buss, D.M. (Ed.): The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, pp. 5–67.Google Scholar
  42. Ward, C. and Gimbel S. (2010): Retroductive Analogy: How to and How Not to Make Claims of Good Reasons to Believe in Evolutionary and Anti-Evolutionary Hypotheses. Argumentation 24: 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolf, M. (2007): Proust and the Squid. The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMillersville UniversityMillersvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations