Evolutionary Psychology - Essay Example

? Evolutionary Psychology Tyfanny Payne Pennsylvania Schuylkill This paper was prepared for the Evolutionary Psychology, taught by Dr. Scherer. Abstract Evolutionary Psychology is a branch in psychology that examines and identifies several traits that are involved in evolution, such as sexual selection. This branch of psychology also proposes that the present human behavior is a product of adaptation because of survival. This paper deals with all these as it tries to answer several questions. Evolutionary Psychology 1. Look at women's long-term mating preferences. According to evolutionary psychology theory, which preferences make sense to you and which preferences are you skeptical about? Explain the preferences in your answer.  Women’s long term preferences can be divided into three categories and are as follows: Ability and Willingness to Provide Resources, Ability and Willingness to Provide Protection and Ability and Willingness to Engage in Parenting. Now, under those three categories, one can also categorize certain aspects of male traits. But these three generally sums up the preferences of the females. A man should provide resources (Buss, 2007). This means that men should have a good, stable means of resources, such as a job or a high-income business. High social status usually denotes a stable career too. Age is also a factor in determining desirability since the older the male is, the more financially successful he is. Our human ancestors before largely depended on hunting as a means for getting food. Shelter and protection for other males are also significant when choosing a partner. Choosing a mate that can get food for them, therefore, is very important. A good hunter is supposed to be tall, athletic, v-shaped, symmetrical and hairy. All of these factors denote that a man is healthy, and health is a detrimental factor when it comes to choosing a mate since an unhealthy partner can pose as a threat to survival. Also, these traits also denote that the male is capable of protecting the female and the offspring and at the same time, provide food by means of hunting (Buss, 2007)! The last category is the man’s willingness to be a parent. This characteristic denotes maturity, dependability and emotional stability. This shows love and love ultimately, is a tool that is used for commitment and commitment is very important for the female. All of these make sense since a woman is biologically programmed to take care of the offspring and man is biologically programmed to procreate. In order for a woman to get what she needs (a committed man who gives her resources to take care of their child), she needs to put up these qualifications. This unconscious trait list is what makes unions successful, thereby producing viable babies. However, the factor concerning age is not always reliable. Older men are the norm in choosing the correct mate because it denotes stability and more financial capability (Buss, 2007). However, older men are also more prone to diseases, especially in a relationship where the age difference is more than 10 years. Although, yes, the man in question is more financially successful, he is also prone to die earlier which would undermine the other factors such as the ability to provide protection and the promise of health. 2.  There are different theories explaining why mothers provide more care than fathers. Critique each theory using relevant research. There are two theories that can support the claim on why mothers provide more care than fathers. One is that the fathers are never sure of their paternity to children and also the father’s relative reproductivity rate. According to Kanazawa (2008), fathers are never sure of their children compared to women. As in nobody questions women about the child’s mother when she gets pregnant because as mammals, women gestate internally. Thus, it is clear on who the mother is. It is not the same for men, however, because paternity of children is never clear. And there are many cases of men raising other men’s children in the States, so it is not actually a rare possibility, with 13% to 20% as the rate of cuckoldry. With these figures it is understandable why men would not have greater participation than the females when it comes to taking care of the offspring. It may not be his, so why would he invest his resources to the child? Whereas a woman is sure that the child is hers, therefore it is her responsibility to take care of the child. Another theory is that the men are more reproductive than women, or they have higher fitness ceilings (Kanazawa, 2008). Females are not very fit for reproduction. They have to gestate for nine months, and following that, they cannot reproduce because of lactational amenorrhea. The women also have shorter reproductive lives because of menopause. Men, on the other hand, can have children every time he ejaculates, and he can have multiple sex partners too and have children with all of them. His genetic copy for the future generations, therefore, could always be secured, letting him have the liberty to be not as caring to the offspring as compared to the mother. These theories are very practical and true. But men also fail to be dedicated parents (compared to mothers) because they know that the mothers would take care of the offspring. This knowledge is actually enough to make the man abandon the children because he knows that the woman would not leave the children to die because of her commitment to the children. 3. Briefly summarize the debate between Daly & Wilson and Buller about family homicide. Does Buller have a valid point? Does Buller's critique appear to dismiss the theory outright? The Cinderella Effect is a theory in evolutionary psychology that states that the stepparents are more likely to abuse their stepchildren physically, sexually, emotionally compared to children growing up with genetic parents. They can even neglect and on extreme cases murder the children. This is also applicable to family homicides. For several years, Daly and Wilson have researched on this topic and Buller comes along to critique it, stating that the data and results of Daly and Wilson’s study are inaccurate. Buller argues that the reports of Daly and Wilson are biased, stating that abusive parents are easily more detected and recorded rather than the genetic parents. Of course, Daly and Wilson come around to defend their study. Buller also claims that Daly and Wilson were wrong about combining sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect in a single category: abuse. According to him, the data Daly and Wilson had was inaccurate because when he re-did the study, it showed that the children were only 3.3 times likely to be abused compared to Daly and Wilson’s 40 times. Another observation by Buller is that the study conducted by Daly and Wilson do not identify the perpetrator. This means that the genetic parent could have done the abuse and it is not recorded properly. The abuse can also span up to the point of having homicides in the family, specifically those done by the stepparents to their step-children. Buller does have valid points when he chose to point out these facts. However, it should be noted that the data comes from Canada, not US. The way they gather data is different in Canada. That’s why the data can have differences. This statement of Buller implies that there is stigma attached to being stepparent. Buller, however noble his intentions may be appears to be debunking the claims outright. He is not very successful though, because Daly and Wilson provide ironclad explanations to their theory. Also, their theory is tried on many different countries and the results are all the same, implying that, yes, the Cinderella Effect could be true. 4. Briefly summarize the debate between Cosmides & Tooby and Buller about social exchange. Does Buller have a valid point? Does Buller's critique appear to dismiss the theory outright?  Social exchange generally explains the relationships of people. As relationships always have to give and take but then the giving and taking are not always equal. This theory sums up how we feel towards the person depending on how we perceive the balance we get from the effort we put in the relationship to the outcomes of the input; the kind of relationship we deserve from that person; and the chance of having a good relationship from another person. In Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange Cosmides and Tooby debunked the theory that the psychological mechanisms of the human mind are general purpose and content free. They have proposed that the human mind has various different mechanisms that are adapted to their own purposes, dictated by evolution. They found out that human actually have prepared algorithms when confronted by certain situations that require social exchange to happen. These algorithms, according to them, have evolved to be one functional unit (out of a lot of units) that were linked to form a larger degree of social cognition faculty. This also implies that the human mind is modular. This has been critiqued by Buller. He argues that we cannot know specifically what the problems of adaptation that our ancestors faced in the past enough for us to know what kinds of psychological mechanisms we have had to evolve in order to solve these problems. So what is the use, then, of these algorithms? He also points out the uncertainty of our real ancestors by pointing out several Homo species and says that we do not know the lifestyle of these species (which is a wrong claim because of paleontology). He also dismissed the “brain is modular” claim. Buller’s claims are feasible on the surface but when dug deeper, one knows that there are extensive data supporting the claim of Cosmides and Tooby, and Buller’s related literature are often cited for his arguments’ convenience. Buller’s claims are meant to dismiss the whole social exchange theory and he uses “research” to support his claims. But his methods are not very scientific so even if his claims can be plausible, it is not because they appear to confuse the reader, and it seems that he only wants to debunk the whole theory of evolutionary psychology. 5. Explain each perspective of the sex difference in jealousy. Discuss the major findings and major flaws of each perspective. What is your opinion on the debate?  Jealousy is an emotion that reflects insecurity, fear and anxiety over a loss, usually of a human connection. This is a normal and familiar experience in human relationships. It transcends all cultures and sexes. However there are several gender differences when it comes to jealousy. According to the Parental Investment Theory, more men agree in observing the sex differences, particularly in relation to sexual infidelity, when it comes to jealousy. Women, on the other hand, ratify that emotional infidelity is more painful compared to sexual infidelity. The Parental Investment Theory states that women invest more than men when it comes to parenting, as demonstrated by pregnancy, childbirth and nursing (plus child rearing). This theory is agreeable because men, as said earlier, will never know if the offspring of their mate is really his. Because their biological goal in life is to successfully pass down their genes to the next generation, this uncertainty can fuel jealousy on their part, because women are assured of passing down her genes because she is carrying the fetus. Additionally, this notion of paternal uncertainty creates ideas that the woman can be sexually promiscuous and that fetus may not be his. Women, on the other hand, are more hurt when they are faced with emotional infidelity because they are programmed to take care of the offspring, unlike the men who are programmed to breed. Because of their attachment to the offspring, they are naturally more prone to attach to the male who is the provider or in ancient times, the hunter. Now if the man has other mates, the chances of her being served and being committed to the source of food and protection would be lessened. She is also hurt by sexual infidelity though, just as men are hurt by emotional infidelity too, although, as said, not as strong. Another perspective in jealousy is the social structure theory. This theory stems on the fact that social roles are not determined psychologically, but rather sociologically. Because of sex, a person’s status in the society is influenced. Males are stronger than women, therefore he is given more respect in society, largely this is because of the fact that he can do more things (physically) than the females. Men who exhibit power and better status in society are generally viewed as better mates by the women, stating that mate selection by women is not only influenced by a man’s reproductive capabilities but also by the man’s social status. The social theory also states the double standards in society. For example, in sexual experimentation, males are not stigmatized when they participate in such act but when females do, she is labeled as a slut or something synonymous. Also in most societies, males can have sex anytime with females but the females cannot since they have to have an intense, intimate emotional relationship with the male before having sex. Because of these situations in society, both social roles and double standards can be associated with gender differences when it comes to jealousy. Like the previous theory, the social structure theory also posits that females are more affected of emotional infidelity rather than males. This is because, like the evolutionary psychology theory, the females are attached to men who can provide and having their man emotionally attaching himself to another woman would bungle her chances of having a stable supply of resources. Also, emotional attachment, like love, is a sign of commitment. They do not want their mates to be committing with other females. 6. Overall, what is your opinion of evolutionary psychology? Summarize two theories that you think the perspective does a really good job explaining and why. Summarize two theories that you think the perspective does a really poor job explaining and why. Evolutionary psychology is a very good field of study towards understanding human behavior because they entail scientific studies and Darwinian theory of natural selection that true enough, spans up to the selection of mates. Also, evolutionary theory can explain emotions well, as a very useful tool in determining our preferences when it comes to socializing and choosing mates. Two theories in evolutionary psych that I think are good are a) the selection of mates and b) men’s uncertain paternity (as the cause of their less dedicated parenting). The theory on mate selection is very useful in understanding sexual behavior in both males and females. Sexual behavior is generally unconscious but because of evolutionary psychology, we now understand why we do certain actions. This is not because of learned social norms but rather, through psychology, we know that this is anchored on hormones and experiences that date back to millions of years ago. The theory on mate selection is basically this. Men choose women who can take care of their offspring (which is the carrier of their genes for the next generation). Not only that, they need women who are healthy and fertile, so that the mother would be a suitable carrier of his seed. On the other hand, females look for men who have resources, men who are healthy and men who are likely to be good parents. The women, unlike men, have their goals for long term relationship. The men, because their biological goal is to breed, do not really care as much as women about resources. The women, on the other hand, because their main goal is to take care of the offspring (therefore cannot hunt), relies on the man for food and shelter. That is why there is a huge priority on resources and stability. This theory even explains why women prefer older men (more stable, especially financially), hairy men (more testosterone, ergo more potent), and symmetrical men (healthy). Another theory is the man’s paternity uncertainty. This is true, that men cannot be really certain about the paternity of his wife’s child. This is largely because of the fact that women can be promiscuous and they wouldn’t know if the kid in his wife’s womb is really his because he did not undergo gestation. Because of this, it is justifiable to say that this is the reason on why men are not as attached to their children compared to the mothers. After all, why would a man invest on someone emotionally and materially if he does not really have an obligation to? All the more if they do not share the same genes. Although it may be that this is not a conscious thing for the man to observe. This behavior most possibly dates back to our ancestor’s time millions of years ago, that’s why people, especially men, do not really consciously do this. Two theories that I think did a poor job in explaining is, The Cinderella Effect and Sexual Differences when it comes to jealousy. These two theories are generally new and although they are seriously backed by a lot of studies, and they are very reliable studies at that. However, there are critiques for these theories, stating that there are loopholes on it. Although the debunking theories are not very credible, this implies that the new theories can still be modified. The Cinderella Effect tries to explain the occurrence of the stepparents abusing their stepchildren. This may even go drastically to the point that the stepparents actually commit homicide and kill the children. The landmark study for this field in evolutionary psychology is actually helpful in explaining several issues and provides good explanations for it. However, as Buller pointed out, the method of study that Daly and Wilson had was different compared to other studies. This is because the study has been done in Canada. Another issue was that the variables are not classified in a way that one can identify the perpetrator (ie, the genetic parent or the stepparent), that means one can actually say that the child was abused by a parent, and one would conclude that the stepparent did because he was the stepparent. The study actually provides encourages stereotyping for the stepparents. The results of other studies meanwhile, are parallel to the results by Daly and Wilson, so that means the theory proves true. It is confusing anyway. Another is the Sexual Differences in Jealousy, basically states that men get jealous if the woman (their mate) happens to be practice sexual infidelity while women react to emotional infidelity more. I think this is only true to certain cultures, perhaps American culture, even if it does explain that the reason for men doing this is to prevent cuckoldry and women being jealous to prevent the loss of resources. However, in some cultures, men also react strongly too when they are confronted with the fact that their wife is committing emotional infidelity, as with women in certain cultures who would act strongly too, were their husbands are committing sexual infidelity. I think humans, regardless of how they were betrayed (of feel betrayed) have jealousy as their emotion because they need to express the feeling of betrayal, and this does not depend on sex. Bibliography Buss, D. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind 3rd Edition. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Buss, David M., Randy J. Larsen, Drew Westen, and Jennifer Semmelroth, (1992), “Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology”, Psychological Science 3: 251-255. Buller, David J. (2005), Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Buller, David J., Jerry A. Fodor, and Tessa L. Crume (2005), “The Emperor is Still Under-Dressed”, Trends in Cognitive Science 9(11): 508-51 Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 163-228. Cosmides, Leda, John Tooby, Laurence Fiddick, and Gregory A. Bryant (2005), “Detecting Cheaters”, Trends in Cognitive Science 9(11): 505-506. Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson (ms1), “The “Cinderella Effect”: Elevated Mistreatment of Stepchildren in Comparison to those Living with Genetic Parents”. Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson (1999), The Truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love. New Haven: Yale University Press Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson (1988), Homicide. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyte. Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson (ms2), “Reply to David Buller by Martin Daly & Margo Wilson”. Machery, E. and Barrett, H. (___). Debunking Adaptive Minds. Retrieved from: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/shapiro/Phil951/Machery&Barrett.pdf Trivers, Robert L. (1972), “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection”, in B. Campbell (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. Chicago: Aldine, 136-79 Read More