Evolution without adaptation?
| Abstract | Within a decade or so following publication of Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby’s landmark book The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (1992), evolutionary psychology had bulldozed its way into the public eye. Its topics were sexy, and not just figuratively. Among them were questions about why men prefer nubile women with large breasts, why women prefer broad-chested men who drive fancy automobiles, why men view sexual infidelity as more serious than emotional infidelity while women show the opposite pattern, why people view incest with revulsion. Evolutionary psychologists also sought to explain why stepfathers abuse their stepchildren more often than their biological children, and why rules of reasoning, such as material implication, are easier to apply when trying to spot a cheater than when deciding whether an odd number would be on one side of a card if a vowel was on the other. And while there were critics (e.g. Stephen Gould, ‘‘Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism’’, 1997), evolutionary psychology had built a head of steam and its shibboleths soon became the darlings of the popular media. Of course men prefer nubile women: natural selection would have eliminated men who chose to mate with females too young or old to bear children. Obviously women prefer high status males – women who preferred mates who could not provide for their children would not have spread their genes beyond the next generation. And what else but natural selection could explain why people react with disgust to incest? The most significant bump in the road for evolutionary psychology arose with the publication of David Buller’s exhaustive critique.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesElisabeth A. Lloyd (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The Burdens or Proof. Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):211-33.
Richard Machalek (1999). Novel Status Contests, Archaic Evolved Psychologies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):231-231.
Peter Frost (1998). Sex Differences May Indeed Exist for 3-D Navigational Abilities: But Was Sexual Selection Responsible? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):443-444.
Hugh LaFollette (1992). Real Men. In Larry May & Robert Strikwerda (eds.), Masculinity. Rowman and Littlefield.
Jennifer A. Parks (2004). Grin and Bare It. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 11 (1):45-53.
Stephen Beckerman (1999). Violence, Sex, and the Good Mother. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):215-216.
Robert C. Richardson (1996). The Prospects for an Evolutionary Psychology: Human Language and Human Reasoning. Minds and Machines 6 (4):541-557.
Chris Haufe (2008). Sexual Selection and Mate Choice in Evolutionary Psychology. Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):115-128.
Steven W. Gangestad & Jeffry A. Simpson (2000). The Evolution of Human Mating: Trade-Offs and Strategic Pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):573-587.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-06-19Total downloads47 ( #23,042 of 548,969 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
