Search results for 'adaptationism' (try it on Scholar)

182 found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Massimo Pigliucci & Jonathan Kaplan (2000). The Fall and Rise of Dr. Pangloss: Adaptationism and the Spandrels Paper 20 Years Later. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2):66-77.score: 24.0
    Twenty years have passed since Gould and Lewontin published their critique of ‘the adaptationist program’ – the tendency of some evolutionary biologists to assume, rather than demonstrate, the operation of natural selection. After the ‘Spandrels paper’, evolutionists were more careful about producing just-so stories based on selection, and paid more attention to a panoply of other processes. Then came reactions against the excesses of the anti-adaptationist movement, which ranged from a complete dismissal of Gould and Lewontin’s contribution to a positive (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. S. Okasha (2003). Fodor on Cognition, Modularity, and Adaptationism. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):68-88.score: 24.0
    This paper critically examines Jerry Fodor's latest attacks on evolutionary psychology. Contra Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, Fodor argues (i) there is no reason to think that human cognition is a Darwinian adaptation in the first place, and (ii) there is no valid inference from adaptationism about the mind to massive modularity. However, Fodor maintains (iii) that there is a valid inference in the converse direction, from modularity to adaptationism, but (iv) that the language module is an exception (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Matthew Rellihan (2012). Adaptationism and Adaptive Thinking in Evolutionary Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 25 (2):245-277.score: 24.0
    Evolutionary psychologists attempt to infer our evolved psychology from the selection pressures present in our ancestral environments. Their use of this inference strategy?often called ?adaptive thinking??is thought to be justified by way of appeal to a rather modest form of adaptationism, according to which the mind's adaptive complexity reveals it to be a product of selection. I argue, on the contrary, that the mind's being an adaptation is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for the validity of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Scott Atran (2005). Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious, or Weak? Mind and Language 20 (1):39-67.score: 24.0
    Strong adaptationists explore complex organic design as taskspecific adaptations to ancestral environments. This strategy seems best when there is evidence of homology. Weak adaptationists don't assume that complex organic (including cognitive and linguistic) functioning necessarily or primarily represents taskspecific adaptation. This approach to cognition resembles physicists' attempts to deductively explain the most facts with fewest hypotheses. For certain domainspecific competencies (folkbiology) strong adaptationism is useful but not necessary to research. With grouplevel belief systems (religion) strong adaptationism degenerates into (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Sean A. Valles (2012). Evolutionary Medicine at Twenty: Rethinking Adaptationism and Disease. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 27 (2):241-261.score: 24.0
    Two decades ago, the eminent evolutionary biologist George C. Williams and his physician coauthor, Randolph Nesse, formulated the evolutionary medicine research program. Williams and Nesse explicitly made adaptationism a core component of the new program, which has served to undermine the program ever since, distorting its practitioners’ perceptions of evidentiary burdens and in extreme cases has served to warp practitioner’s understandings of the relationship between evolutionary benefits/detriments and medical ones. I show that the Williams and Nesse program more particularly (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Tim Lewens (2002). Adaptationism and Engineering. Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):1-31.score: 24.0
    The rights and wrongs of adaptationism areoften discussed by appeal to what I call theartefact model. Anti-adaptationistscomplain that the use of optimality modelling,reverse engineering and other techniques areindicative of a mistaken and outmoded beliefthat organisms are like well-designedartefacts. Adaptationists (e.g. Dennett 1995)respond with the assertion that viewingorganisms as though they were well designed isa fruitful, perhaps necessary research strategyin evolutionary biology. Anti-adaptationistsare right when they say that techniques likereverse engineering are liable to mislead. This fact does not undermine the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Roger Sansom (2003). Constraining the Adaptationism Debate. Biology and Philosophy 18 (4):493-512.score: 24.0
    This contribution to the adaptationism debate elaborates the nature of constraints and their importance in evolutionary explanation and argues that the adaptationism debate should be limited to the issue of how to privilege causes in evolutionary explanation. I argue that adaptationist explanations are deeply conceptually dependent on developmental constraints, and explanations that appeal to constraints are dependant on the results of natural selection. I suggest these explanations should be integrated into the framework of historical causal explanation. Each strategy (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Resnik (1996). Adaptationism: Hypothesis or Heuristic? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):39-50.score: 24.0
    Elliott Sober (1987, 1993) and Orzack and Sober (forthcoming) argue that adaptationism is a very general hypothesis that can be tested by testing various particular hypotheses that invoke natural selection to explain the presence of traits in populations of organisms. In this paper, I challenge Sobers claim that adaptationism is an hypothesis and I argue that it is best viewed as a heuristic (or research strategy). Biologists would still have good reasons for employing this research strategy even if (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Michael J. Murray (2010). The Evolution of Religion: Adaptationist Accounts. In Science and Religion in Dialogue. Wiley-Blackwell. 437--457.score: 24.0
    This chapter contains sections titled: * I Introduction * II One Preliminary * III Adaptationist Theories * IV Punishment Theories * V Commitment Signaling * VI Group Selection * V Conclusion * Notes * References.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Scott Atran (2005). Strong Versus Weak Adaptationism in Cognition and Language. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York.score: 21.0
  11. Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.score: 18.0
    Godfrey-Smith ( 2001 ) has distinguished three types of adaptationism. This article builds on his analysis, and revises it in places, by distinguishing seven varieties of adaptationism. This taxonomy allows us to clarify what is at stake in debates over adaptationism, and it also helps to cement the importance of Gould and Lewontin’s ‘Spandrels’ essay. Some adaptationists have suggested that their essay does not offer any coherent alternative to the adaptationist programme: it consists only in an exhortation (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Ron Amundson (1994). Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge From Developmental Biology. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):556-578.score: 18.0
    The so-called "adaptationism" of mainstream evolutionary biology has been criticized from a variety of sources. One, which has received relatively little philosophical attention, is developmental biology. Developmental constraints are said to be neglected by adaptationists. This paper explores the divergent methodological and explanatory interests that separate mainstream evolutionary biology from its embryological and developmental critics. It will focus on the concept of constraint itself; even this central concept is understood differently by the two sides of the dispute.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Gillian Barker (2008). Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):1-25.score: 18.0
    Two critiques of simple adaptationism are distinguished: anti-adaptationism and extended adaptationism. Adaptationists and anti-adaptationists share the presumption that an evolutionary explanation should identify the dominant simple cause of the evolutionary outcome to be explained. A consideration of extended-adaptationist models such as coevolution, niche construction and extended phenotypes reveals the inappropriateness of this presumption in explaining the evolution of certain important kinds of features—those that play particular roles in the regulation of organic processes, especially behavior. These biological or (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Peter Godfrey-Smith, Three Kinds of Adaptationism.score: 18.0
    Debate about adaptationism in biology continues, in part because within “the” problem of assessing adaptationism, three distinct problems are mixed together. The three problems concern the assessment of three distinct adaptationist positions, each of which asserts the central importance of adaptation and natural selection to the study of evolution, but conceives this importance in a different way. As there are three kinds of adaptationism, there are three distinct "anti-adaptationist" positions as well. Or putting it more formally, there (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Jon F. Wilkins & Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009). Adaptationism and the Adaptive Landscape. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):199-214.score: 18.0
    Debates over adaptationism can be clarified and partially resolved by careful consideration of the ‘grain’ at which evolutionary processes are described. The framework of ‘adaptive landscapes’ can be used to illustrate and facilitate this investigation. We argue that natural selection may have special status at an intermediate grain of analysis of evolutionary processes. The cases of sickle-cell disease and genomic imprinting are used as case studies.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Eric Reuland (2008). On Language and Evolution: Why Neo-Adaptationism Fails. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):531-532.score: 18.0
    I identify a number of problematic aspects of Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) contribution. These include their suggestion that subjacency and binding reflect non-domain-specific mechanisms; that proto-language is a ; and that non-adaptationism requires overly rich innate structures, and is incompatible with acceptable evolutionary processes. It shows that a fully UG (Universal Grammar)-free version of the authors' neo-adaptationism would be incoherent.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Brian Haig & Russil Durrant (2002). Adaptationism and Inference to the Best Explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):520-521.score: 18.0
    Andrews et al. effectively argue that, despite prominent criticism, adaptationism can be a viable research strategy. We agree. In our complementary commentary, we discuss the neglected method of inference to the best explanation and argue that it is a valuable addition to the adaptationist's methodological practice.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Shunkichi Matsumoto (2008). The Nature of Adaptationism. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:121-127.score: 18.0
    In this paper, I will take advantage of the controversy on the legitimacy of adaptationism in evolutionary biology to further investigate the nature of adaptationistic thinking, or biological explanations in general. To this end, first I will look at the famous and provocative criticism made by Gould and Lewontin (1979) against then-prevalent adaptationism --- a research strategy for accounting for the origin of traits of organisms seemingly adapted to the environment by appealing primarily to natural selection. Then I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Chandra Sekhar Sripada (2008). Adaptationism, Culture, and the Malleability of Human Nature. In Peter Caruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind, Volume 3. Oxford University Press.score: 18.0
    It is often thought that if an adaptationist explanation of some behavioural phenomenon is true, then this fact shows that a culturist explanation of the very same phenomenon is false, or else the adaptationist explanation preempts or crowds out the culturist explanation in some way. This chapter shows why this so-called competition thesis is misguided. Two evolutionary models are identified — the Information Learning Model and the Strategic Learning Model — which show that adaptationist reasoning can help explain why cultural (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism, Exaptationism, and Evolutionary Behavioral Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):534-547.score: 18.0
    In our target article, we discussed the standards of evidence that could be used to identify adaptations, and argued that building an empirical case that certain features of a trait are best explained by exaptation, spandrel, or constraint requires the consideration, testing, and rejection of adaptationist hypotheses. We are grateful to the 31 commentators for their thoughtful insights. They raised important issues, including the meaning of “exaptation”; whether Gould and Lewontin's critique of adaptationism was primarily epistemological or ontological; the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism – How to Carry Out an Exaptationist Program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):489-504.score: 18.0
    1 Adaptationism is a research strategy that seeks to identify adaptations and the specific selective forces that drove their evolution in past environments. Since the mid-1970s, paleontologist Stephen J. Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin have been critical of adaptationism, especially as applied toward understanding human behavior and cognition. Perhaps the most prominent criticism they made was that adaptationist explanations were analogous to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories (outlandish explanations for questions such as how the elephant got its trunk). (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Russil Durrant & Brian D. Haig (2001). How to Pursue the Adaptationist Program in Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 14 (4):357 – 380.score: 18.0
    In recent times evolutionary psychologists have offered adaptation explanations for a wide range of human psychological characteristics. Critics, however, have argued that such endeavors are problematic because the appropriate evidence required to demonstrate adaptation is unlikely to be forthcoming, therefore severely limiting the role of the adaptationist program in psychology. More specifically, doubts have been raised over both the methodology employed by evolutionary psychologists for studying adaptations and about the possibility of ever developing acceptably rigorous evolutionary explanations of human psychological (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Judith A. Easton, Lucas D. Schipper & Todd K. Shackelford (2006). Why the Adaptationist Perspective Must Be Considered: The Example of Morbid Jealousy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):411-412.score: 18.0
    We describe delusional disorder–jealous type (“morbid jealousy”) with the adaptationist perspective used by Darwinian psychiatrists and evolutionary psychologists to explain the relatively common existence and continued prevalence of mental disorders. We then apply the “harmful dysfunction” analysis to morbid jealousy, including a discussion of this disorder as (1) an end on a continuum of normal jealousy or (2) a discrete entity. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Alfonso Troisi (2006). Adaptationism and Medicalization: The Scylla and Charybdis of Darwinian Psychiatry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):422-423.score: 18.0
    The target article shows that the application of the evolutionary theory to psychopathology should not necessarily consist in finding hidden adaptive benefits for each psychiatric syndrome. However, in rejecting lax adaptationism, Darwinian psychiatrists should not forget that the search for adaptive behavioral polymorphisms can be a powerful antidote against the normative attitude of mainstream psychiatry and its growing tendency to medicalize human diversity. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Jonathan Kaplan (2008). Economic Rationality and Explaining Human Behavior: An Adaptationist Program? International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 3 (7):79-94.score: 18.0
    Attempts to explain human behavior that appeal to economic rationality share many of the same ontological as- sumptions and methodological practices that the so-called ‘adaptationist program’ in biology was criticized for. This program in biology was largely abandoned by biologists as poorly motivated, and replaced with the active testing of both adaptive and non-adaptive hypotheses regarding the spread and maintenance of traits in populations. This development was largely welcome by the biological <span class='Hi'>community</span>, despite having required the development of new (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Scott Atran (2002). Modest Adaptationism: Muddling Through Cognition and Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):504-506.score: 18.0
    Strong adaptationists would explain complex organic designs as specific adaptations to particular ancestral environments. Weak adaptationists don't assume that complex organic functioning represents evolutionary design in the sense of niche-specific adaptation. For some domain-specific competencies (folkbiology) strong adaptationism is useful, not necessary. With group-level belief systems (religion), strong adaptationism can become spurious pseudo-adaptationism. In other cases (language), weak adaptationism proves productive.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Michael E. Price, William M. Brown & Oliver S. Curry (2007). The Integrative Framework for the Behavioural Sciences has Already Been Discovered, and It is the Adaptationist Approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):39-40.score: 18.0
    The adaptationist framework is necessary and sufficient for unifying the social and natural sciences. Gintis's “beliefs, preferences, and constraints” (BPC) model compares unfavorably to this framework because it lacks criteria for determining special design, incorrectly assumes that standard evolutionary theory predicts individual rationality maximisation, does not adequately recognize the impact of psychological mechanisms on culture, and is mute on the behavioural implications of intragenomic conflict. (Published Online April 27 2007).
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Sahotra Sarkar (forthcoming). The Genomic Challenge to Adaptationism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axu002.score: 18.0
    Since the late 1990s, the characterization of complete DNA sequences for a large and taxonomically diverse set of species has continued to gain in speed and accuracy. Sequence analyses have indicated a strikingly baroque structure for most eukaryotic genomes, with multiple repeats of DNA sequences and with very little of the DNA specifying proteins. Much of the DNA in these genomes has no known function. These results have generated strong interest in the factors that govern the evolution of genome architecture. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Wim J. Steen (1983). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology II. Appraisal of Arguments Against Adaptationism. Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3).score: 18.0
    Methodological analysis shows that the concepts of fitness and adaptation are more complex than the literature suggests. Various arguments against adaptationism are inadequate since they are couched in terms of unduly simplistic notions.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Thomas E. Dickins & David W. Dickins (2002). Is Empirical Imagination a Constraint on Adaptationist Theory Construction? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):515-516.score: 18.0
    Andrews et al. present a form of instrumental adaptationism that is designed to test the hypothesis that a given trait is an adaptation. This epistemological commitment aims to make clear statements about behavioural natural kinds. The instrumental logic is sound, but it is the limits of our empirical imagination that can cause problems for theory construction.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. James Swanson, Robert Moyzis, John Fossella, Jin Fan & Michael I. Posner (2002). Adaptationism and Molecular Biology: An Example Based on ADHD. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):530-531.score: 18.0
    Rather than starting with traits and speculating whether selective forces drove evolution in past environments, we propose starting with a candidate gene associated with a trait and testing first for patterns of selection at the DNA level. This can provide limitations on the number of traits to be evaluated subsequently by adaptationism as described by Andrews et al.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Simon M. Huttegger (2010). Generic Properties of Evolutionary Games and Adaptationism. Journal of Philosophy 107 (2):80-102.score: 15.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Jeremy C. Ahouse (1998). The Tragedy of a Priori Selectionism: Dennett and Gould on Adaptationism. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (3):359-391.score: 15.0
    In his recent book on Darwinism, Daniel Dennett has offered up a species of a priori selectionism that he calls algorithmic. He used this view to challenge a number of positions advocated by Stephen J. Gould. I examine his algorithmic conception, review his unqualified enthusiasm for the a priori selectionist position, challenge Dennett's main metaphors (cranes vs. skyhooks and a design space), examine ways in which his position has lead him to misunderstand or misrepresent Gould (spandrels, exaptation, punctuated equilibrium, contingency (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Peter Godfrey-Smith (1999). Adaptationism and the Power of Selection. Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):181-194.score: 15.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Patrick Forber (2009). Introduction: A Primer on Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):155-159.score: 15.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Robert C. Richardson (2003). Adaptationism, Adaptation, and Optimality. Biology and Philosophy 18 (5):695-713.score: 15.0
  37. Matthew C. Keller & Geoffrey Miller (2006). An Evolutionary Framework for Mental Disorders: Integrating Adaptationist and Evolutionary Genetic Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):429-441.score: 15.0
    This response (a) integrates non-equilibrium evolutionary genetic models, such as coevolutionary arms-races and recent selective sweeps, into a framework for understanding common, harmful, heritable mental disorders; (b) discusses the forms of ancestral neutrality or balancing selection that may explain some portion of mental disorder risk; and (c) emphasizes that normally functioning psychological adaptations work against a backdrop of mutational and environmental noise. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Aurelio José Figueredo, Mark J. Landau & Jon A. Sefcek (2004). Apes and Angels: Adaptationism Versus Panglossianism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):334-335.score: 15.0
    The “straw man” prior expectation of the dominant social psychology paradigm is that humans should behave with perfect rationality and high ethical standards. The more modest claim of evolutionary psychologists is that humans have evolved specific adaptations for adaptive problems that were reliably present in the ancestral environment. Outside that restricted range of problems, one should not expect optimal behavior.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Roberta L. Millstein (2007). Hsp90-Induced Evolution: Adaptationist, Neutralist, and Developmentalist Scenarios. Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition 2 (4):376-386.score: 15.0
    Recent work on the heat-shock protein Hsp90 by Rutherford and Lindquist (1998) has been included among the pieces of evidence taken to show the essential role of developmental processes in evolution; Hsp90 acts as a buffer against phenotypic variation, allowing genotypic variation to build. When the buffering capacity of Hsp90 is altered (e.g., in nature, by mutation or environmental stress), the genetic variation is "revealed," manifesting itself as phenotypic variation. This phenomenon raises questions about the genetic variation before and after (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Steven Hecht Orzack (2010). Adaptationism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 15.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. William Michael Brown (2002). Development: The Missing Link Between Exaptationist and Adaptationist Accounts of Organismal Design. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):509-510.score: 15.0
    To understand adaptation (and exaptation), a more comprehensive view of development is required: one beyond a constraining force. Developmental plasticity may be an adaptation by natural selection simultaneously favored (or sometimes in conflict) at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., cells, individuals, groups, etc.). To understand the interrelationships between developmental plasticity and adaptive evolution I borrow heavily from West-Eberhard (2003) and Frank (1995; 1997). Developmental plasticity facilitates evolution, results in particular patterns of evolutionary change, and may produce exaptations by design (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Roberta L. Millstein (2002). Review of Steven Hecht Orzack, Elliot Sober (Eds.), Adaptationism and Optimality. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2002 (5).score: 15.0
  43. David B. Resnik (1989). Adaptationist Explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 20 (2):193-213.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Kevin MacDonald (1999). What About Sex Differences? An Adaptationist Perspective on “the Lines of Causal Influence” of Personality Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):530-531.score: 15.0
    The evolutionary theory of sex implies a theoretically principled account of the causal mechanisms underlying personality systems in which males pursue a relatively high-risk strategy compared to females and are thus higher on traits linked to sensation seeking and social dominance. Females are expected to be lower on these traits but higher on traits related to nurturance and attraction to long-term relationships. The data confirm this pattern of sex differences. It is thus likely that these traits have (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Gilbert Harman (1983). Adaptationist Theorizing and Intentional System Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (3):365.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Christine R. Harris & Nancy Alvarado (2002). Pain Facial Expression: Individual Variability Undermines the Specific Adaptationist Account. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):461-462.score: 15.0
    The proposal that there are specific adaptations for the expression and detection of pain appears premature on both conceptual and empirical grounds. We discuss criteria for the validation of a pain facial expression. We also describe recent findings from our lab on coping styles and pain expression, which illustrate the importance of considering individual differences when proposing evolutionary explanations.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Richard Dawkins (1983). Adaptationism Was Always Predictive and Needed No Defense. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (3):360.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. S. J. Gould & R. C. Lewontin (1994). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. The Mit Press. Bradford Books. 73-90.score: 15.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Ulrich Krohs (2011). Functions and Fixed Types: Biological and Other Functions in the Post-Adaptationist Era. Applied Ontology 6 (2):125-139.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. David Magnus & Peter Thiel (1990). Hidden Adaptationism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (1):26.score: 15.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 182