Abstract
Evolutionary psychology is a science in the making, working toward the goal of showing how psychological adaptation underlies much human behavior. The knee-jerk reaction that sociobiology is unscientific because it tells “just-so stories” has become a common charge against evolutionary psychology as well. My main positive thesis is that inference to the best explanation is a proper method for evolutionary analyses, and it supplies a new perspective on the issues raised in Schlinger's (1996) just-so story critique. My main negative thesis is that, like many nonevolutionist critics, Schlinger's objections arise from misunderstandings of the evolutionary approach.
Evolutionary psychology has progressed beyond telling just-so stories. It has found a host of ingenious special techniques to test hypotheses about the adaptive significance and proximate mechanisms of behavior. Naturalistic data using the comparative method combined with controlled tests using statistical analyses of data provide good evidence for a variety of hypotheses about behavioral control mechanisms — whether in nonhumans or in humans. For instance, the work of Gangestad and Thornhill on evolved mate preferences and fluctuating asymmetry of body type (FA) is a model of success. As the quantity and quality of evidence increase, we are entitled not just to regard such evolutionary hypotheses as preferable, but also as true. Such studies combine to show that the best explanation of “the psychic unity of humankind” — common patterns across societies, history, and cultures exposed by evolutionists — is the gendered, adapted, evolved species-typical design of the mind.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AlexanderRichard D. (1987),The Biology of Moral Systems, (1987), Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Barkow, J., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds.) (1992),The Adapted Mind. Oxford University Press.
BockK. (1980),Human Nature and History, New York: Columbia University Press.
BussD. (1994),The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, New York: Basic Books.
BussD. (1989), ‘Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, pp. 1–49.
Caplan, A.L. (1981–1982), ‘Say It Just Ain't So: Adaptational Stories and Sociobiological Explanations of Social Behavior’, inThe Philosophical Forum, 18, pp. 2–3.
CrawfordC. and J.Anderson, (1989) ‘Sociobiology: An Environmentalist Discipline?’,American Psychologist, 44, pp. 1449–1459.
Crawford, C. (1987), ‘Sociobiology: Of What Value to Psychology?’, in Crawfordet al., pp. 3–30.
CrawfordC., M.Smith and D.Krebs (1987),Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications, Hillsdale: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
FutuymaK.J. (1979),Human Sociobiology, New York: The Free Press.
GangestadS.W. and D.Buss (1993), ‘Pathogen Prevalence and Human Mate Preferences’,Ethology and Sociobiology 14, pp. 89–96.
GangestadS.W. and R.Thornhill (1996), ‘Human Sexual Selection and Developmental Stability’, in J.A.Simpson and D.T.Kenrick (Eds.),Evolutionary Social Psychology, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gangestad. S.W. and R. Thornhill (1995), ‘An Evolutionary Analysis of Human Sexual Selection: Developmental Stability, Male Sexual Behavior, and Mediating Features’,Psychological Science.
GangestadS.W., R.Thornhill, and R.Yeo (1994), ‘Facial Attractiveness, Developmental Stability, and Fluctuating Asymmetry,’Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, pp. 73–85.
Gould, S.J. (1980) ‘Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection,’ in G.W. Barlow and J. Silverberg (Eds.),Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture, pp. 257–269.
GouldS.J. (1979),The Mismeasure of Man, New York: Norton.
Holcomb, Harmon R. (forthcoming), ‘Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses’, in Crawford, C. and D. Krebs (Eds.),Evolution and Human Behavior: Ideas, Issues, and Applications, Hillsdale: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
HolcombHarmon R. (1996), ‘Moving Beyond Just-So Stories: Evolutionary Psychology as Protoscience’,Skeptic Magazine, 4:1, pp. 60–66.
HolcombHarmon R. (1994), ‘Evolved Psychological Mechanisms and Content Specificity’,Anthropology of Consciousness, 5:4, pp. 19–23.
HolcombH. (1993),Sociobiology, Sex and Science, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
KitcherP. (1985),Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
MealeyL. (1995), The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 pp. 523–599.
RidleyM. (1993),The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, New York: Penguin.
RushtonJ.P. (1995),Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Prespective. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
SahlinsM. (1976),The Use and Abuse of Biology, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
SchlingerHenry D.Jr. (1996), ‘How the Human Got Its Spots: A Critical Analysis of the Just So Stories of Evolutionary Psychology’,Skeptic Magazine 4:1, pp. 68–76.
Thornhill, R. and S.W. Gangestad, (1994) ‘Human Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Behavior’,Psychological Science, pp. 1–6.
ThornhillR. and S.W.Gangestad, (1993) ‘Human Facial Beauty: Averageness, Symmetry, and Parasite Resistance’,Human Nature 4:3, pp. 237–269.
ThornhillR. and N.Thornhill, (1992), ‘The Evolutionary Psychology of Men's Coercive Sexuality’,Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15: 363–421.
WheelerD. (1996), ‘Darwin's Scholarly Heirs’,The Chronicle of Higher Education XLII: 36, pp. A10-A11 & A19–A20.
WilsonM. & M.Wilson (1988),Homicide, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
WrightR. (1994),The Moral Animal, New York: Pantheon.
WrightR. (1994a), ‘Infidelity: Is It in Our Genes?’,Time Magazine August 15, 144:7, p. 44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holcomb, H.R. Just so stories and inference to the best explanation in evolutionary psychology. Mind Mach 6, 525–540 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389657
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389657