人类行为的进化论解释及其特征

进化论用于解释人类行为的合理性依赖于对进化论结构的理解,而不能通过直接肯定或否定人类行为有无某种生物学的结构基础来回答.如果进化论是对现象系统的描述,那它在原则上就不能用于对人类行为进化的研究.进化论应被看作是对一类物理系统的定义,理论定义系统与现象系统也只能在现象层面上同构.人类行为进化解释的恰当性,就在于人类行为系统与进化论定义系统在经验上的适合达到了期望的程度.     

Modern application of evolutionary theory to psychology: key concepts and clarifications

Darwinian selection has become the centerpiece of biology, and in the past few decades many psychologists and anthropologists have recognized the value of using an evolutionary perspective to guide their work. With a focus on evolved psychological mechanisms and associated information processing features, evolutionary psychology has risen as a compelling and fruitful approach to the study of human psychology and behavior. In this article we review the instrument of evolution: natural selection, the products of evolution, and the impact of evolutionary thinking on modern psychological science. We conclude that as prejudicial barriers are overcome, as more evolutionary psychological work is conducted, and as hypothesized psychological mechanisms are substantiated in other disciplines, evolutionary psychology will emerge as the metatheory for psychology.     

The proper role of history in evolutionary explanations

Evolutionary explanations are not only common in the biological sciences, but also widespread outside biology. But an account of how evolutionary explanations perform their explanatory work is still lacking. This paper develops such an account. I argue that available accounts of explanations in evolutionary science miss important parts of the role of history in evolutionary explanations. I argue that the historical part of evolutionary science should be taken as having genuine explanatory force, and that it provides how-possibly explanations sensu Dray. I propose an account of evolutionary explanations as comparative-composite explanations consisting of two distinct kinds of explanations, one processual and one historical, that are connected via the explanandum's evolvability to show how the explanandum is the product of its evolutionary past. The account is both a reconstruction of how evolutionary explanations in biology work and a guideline specifying what kind of explanations evolutionary research programs should develop.     

Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology: Allies, Adversaries, or Both? An Introduction to a Special Issue

This special issue on feminism and evolutionary psychology addresses current theory and research from feminist and evolutionary psychologists, focusing on gender differences in mate selection as conceptualized by Sexual Strategies Theory. This introduction begins with feminist critiques of evolutionary psychology as well as attempts by Darwinian feminists to integrate the two. It then reviews the papers, which generally fit into one of three lines of research. One group of papers critiques evolutionary psychology claims and presents research to support alternative theoretical explanations. A second group uses evolutionary psychology to support research on gender differences in alignment with Sexual Strategies Theory. A third group utilizes theory and empirical research to integrate evolutionary psychology and feminist theories. The introduction concludes with a call for furthering our understanding of the relationship between these theories.     

Ethical objectivity: The test of time

According to many, evolutionary accounts of ethics undermine the prospects of its objective foundation. By contrast, this paper argues that such evolutionary accounts discredit only the absolutist construal of moral truths as timeless but supports other conceptions of objectivity as tested by time. Insofar as Kantian constructivism addresses the problem of ethical objectivity from the standpoint of temporal rational agents, it is not vulnerable to debunking arguments based on evolutionary explanations. In fact, recent work on evolutionary accounts of reasoning and inferences not only coheres with but it also reinforces the constructivist conception of practical reason as a problem‐solving cooperative device apt to temporal and interdependent rational agents.     

进化认知心理学的模块说

该文介绍了进化认知心理学中的一个主流观点———模块说。模块说认为心理由各相互独立的、解决特定任务的模块组成。进化认知心理学的研究历史悠久,很多著名研究者都对此做出了巨大的贡献。该文结合各种例子,阐述了进化心理学的模块说以及其迅速、高效但并非精确无误等特点,同时也结合例子阐明了社会认知领域的心理模块。     

Evolutionary consumer psychology: Ask not what you can do for biology,but…

The commentaries raise questions about modularity, and about the evidence required to establish evolutionary influences on behavior. We briefly discuss evidence leading evolutionary psychologists to assume that human choices reflect evolutionary influences, and to assume some degree of modularity in human information processing. An evolutionary perspective is based on a multidisciplinary nomological network of evidence, and results of particular experiments are only one part of that network. The precise nature of, and number of, information processing systems, is an empirical question. Consumer psychologists need not retrain as biologists to profit from using insights and findings from evolutionary biology to generate new hypotheses, and to contribute novel insights and findings to the emerging nomological network of modern evolutionary science.     

Evolutionary Skepticism about Morality and Prudential Normativity

Debunking arguments aim at defeating the justification of a belief by revealing the belief to have a dubious genealogy. One prominent example of such a debunking argument is Richard Joyce’s evolutionary debunking explanation of morality. Joyce’s argument targets only our belief in moral facts, while our belief in prudential facts is exempt from his evolutionary critique. In this paper, I suggest that our belief in prudential facts falls victim to evolutionary debunking, too. Just as our moral sense can be explained in evolutionary terms, so presumably can our tendency to judge our actions in prudential terms. And if the evolutionary explanation of our moral sense has an undermining effect, then so does the evolutionary explanation of our belief in prudential facts. This also undermines moral fictionalism, the view that we have prudential reasons to maintain moral discourse as a fiction. I consider and refute four possible objections to the suggested debunking of our belief in prudential normativity.     

Beyond Darwinism’s Eclipse: Functional Evolution,Biochemical Recapitulation and Spencerian Emergence in the 1920s and 1930s

During the 1920s and 1930s, many biologists questioned the viability of Darwin’s theory as a mechanism of evolutionary change. In the early 1940s, and only after a number of alternatives were suggested, Darwinists succeeded to establish natural selection and gene mutation as the main evolutionary mechanisms. While that move, today known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is taken as signalling a triumph of evolutionary theory, certain critical problems in evolution—in particular the evolution of animal function—could not be addressed with this approach. Here I demonstrate this through reconstruction of the evolutionary theory of Joseph Needham (1900–1995), who pioneered the biochemical study of evolution and development. In order to address such problems, Needham employed Herbert Spencer’s principles of emergence and Ernst Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation. While Needham did not reject Darwinian theory, Spencerian and Haeckelian frameworks happened to better fit his findings and their evolutionary relevance. He believed selectionist and genetic approaches to be important but far from sufficient for explaining how evolutionary transformations occur.     

Contemplating an Evolutionary Approach to Entrepreneurship

This artical explores that application of evolutionary approaches to the study of entrepreneurship. It is argued an evolutionary theory of entrepreneurship must give as much concern to the foundations of evolutionary thought as it does the nature of entrepreneurship. The central point being that we must move beyond a debate or preference of the natural selection and adaptationist viewpoints. Only then can the interrelationships between individuals, firms, populations and the environments within which they interact be better appreciated.     

Rhapsodic Evolution: Essay on Exaptation and Evolutionary Pluralism

Since formulating the theory of punctuated equilibria in 1972, a group of prominent evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists have contributed towards a significant reinterpretation of the neo-Darwinian image of evolution that had consolidated during the second half of the twentieth century. We believe a research program, which we might define as "evolutionary pluralism" or "post-Darwinism," has been outlined, one that is centered on the discovery of the complexity and multiplicity of elements that work together to produce changes in our evolutionary systems. We are talking about a three-dimensional multiplicity: a multiplicity of rhythms in evolution (i.e., the theory of punctuated equilibria); a multiplicity of evolutionary units and levels (i.e., the hierarchical theory of evolution); and a multiplicity of factors and causes in evolution (i.e., the concept of exaptation). Although the reductionistic and deterministic view of natural history interprets the intelligence of evolution as a panoptic and executory rationality, evolutionary pluralism, going back to the original flexibility of the Darwinian opus, sees in the intelligence of evolution an ingenious m tis, an imperfect but very creative, craftsmanlike cleverness. The new metaphors of change introduced by evolutionary pluralism and the consequent criticism of the adaptational paradigm offer some very interesting spin-offs for the study of evolutionary systems in widely differing fields, from theoretical economics to the cognitive sciences. I propose a particular hypothesis concerning the possibility and usefulness of expanding the concept of exaptation into a general theory of developmental processes, both in biology as well as in the cognitive sciences.     

Evolution and Personality: What Should a Comprehensive Theory Address and How?

Personality is arguably the most integrative area of psychology; yet, it is an area about which evolutionary psychologists have had comparatively little to say. This is unfortunate because evolutionary theory holds great potential as a framework that can link together the disparate aspects that make up a person. We suggest that progress in evolutionary personality psychology will be helped by clarification of precisely what an evolutionary theory of personality would need to address. To this end, we first describe and assess some extant contributions by theorists attempting to understand personality from an evolutionary perspective. Next, we endorse a working definition of what personality entails and outline three types of personality differences – character traits, goals/motives, and selves/identities – that any comprehensive evolutionary theory of personality should address. Finally, we suggest an approach forward, one where evolved species‐typical motives orient people toward adaptive ends and result in the differentiation of individuals’ unique selves.     

Research traditions and evolutionary explanations in medicine

In this article, I argue that distinguishing ‘evolutionary’ from ‘Darwinian’ medicine will help us assess the variety of roles that evolutionary explanations can play in a number of medical contexts. Because the boundaries of evolutionary and Darwinian medicine overlap to some extent, however, they are best described as distinct ‘research traditions’ rather than as competing paradigms. But while evolutionary medicine does not stand out as a new scientific field of its own, Darwinian medicine is united by a number of distinctive theoretical and methodological claims. For example, evolutionary medicine and Darwinian medicine can be distinguished with respect to the styles of evolutionary explanations they employ. While the former primarily involves ‘forward looking’ explanations, the latter depends mostly on ‘backward looking’ explanations. A forward looking explanation tries to predict the effects of ongoing evolutionary processes on human health and disease in contemporary environments (e.g., hospitals). In contrast, a backward looking explanation typically applies evolutionary principles from the vantage point of humans’ distant biological past in order to assess present states of health and disease. Both approaches, however, are concerned with the prevention and control of human diseases. In conclusion, I raise some concerns about the claim that ‘nothing in medicine makes sense except in the light of evolution’.     

Perfecting not Perfect: Christology and Pneumatology within an Imperfect Yet Purposeful Creation

Abstract

The issue of evolutionary theodicy remains an area of difficulty within the science–theology dialogue. The evolutionary understanding of life identifies a process where suffering and extinction are intrinsic; however, theology seeks to articulate God's loving goodness towards creation. Therefore the central question of evolutionary theodicy becomes: “How can a loving God act by such a process?” Within the view of theistic evolution, evolutionary theodicy has resulted in a deeper understanding of Christology and Pneumatology, as the whole of creation is understood to be moving towards its eschatological perfection in Christ.     

Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism: A reply to Eagly and Wood (2011)

I comment on Eagly and Wood's biosocial constructionist evolutionary theory (2011; DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9). Although this gender feminist theory allows for evolved physical differences between men and women and evolved psychological similarities for men and women, it fails to consider evolutionary accounts of psychological sex differences. I hypothesize that gender feminists' reluctance to acknowledge that evolution has left different fingerprints on men's and women's bodies and brains stems from two common misunderstandings of evolutionary psychology: the myth of immutability and the naturalistic fallacy. I conclude that although evolutionary psychology is eminently compatible with equity feminism, evolutionary psychology and feminist psychology will conflict as long as the latter adheres to gender feminism and its unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence for evolved psychological sex differences. Gender feminism's dualistic view of evolution hinders the search for and understanding of the proximate and ultimate causes of inequality. Feminist psychology needs to evolve by embracing equity feminism, which has no a priori stance on the origin or existence of differences between the sexes.     

Arbitrariness in nature: synergetics and evolutionary laws of prohibition

The philosophical consequences of synergetics, the interdisciplinary theory of evolution and self-organization of complex systems, are being drawn in the paper. The idea of discreteness of evolutionary paths is in the focus of attention. Although the future is open, and there are many alternative evolutionary paths for complex systems, not any arbitrary (either conceivable or desirable) evolutionary path is feasible in a given system. There are discrete spectra of possible evolutionary paths which are determined exclusively by inner properties of the corresponding systems. Synergetics allows us to reveal general laws of self-organization and, therefore, certain limits of arbitrariness of nature in choosing possible paths of evolution as well as in constructing of a complex evolutionary whole. A comparative analysis between the modern synergetic notions and a few ideas of the Western philosophy (F. Nietzsche, N. Hartmann, M. Heidegger) and of the Eastern teachings (Taoism, Buddhism) is made. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Children,childhood, and development in evolutionary perspective

We examine children, childhood, and development from an evolutionary perspective. We begin by reviewing major assumptions of evolutionary–developmental psychology, including the integration of “soft” developmental systems theory with ideas from mainstream evolutionary psychology. We then discuss the concept of adaptive developmental plasticity and describe the core evolutionary concept of developmental programming and some of its applications to human development, as instantiated in life history theory and the theory of differential susceptibility to environmental influence. We then discuss the concept of adaptation from an evolutionary–developmental perspective, including ontogenetic and deferred adaptations, and examine the development of some adaptations of infancy and childhood from the domains of folk psychology and folk physics. We conclude that evolutionary theory can serve as a metatheory for developmental science.     

Feminists Need to Look Beyond Evolutionary Psychology for Insights into Human Reproductive Strategies: A Commentary

The Sex Roles: Feminist Reappraisals of Evolutionary Psychology issue that addressed evolutionary psychology’s Sexual Strategies Theory is enlightening for feminists as well as those scholars who examine men and women’s behavior. As several articles in this issue show, there are mixed results in support of this theory. While some feminists may want to conclude that this an indication of the limited influence evolution and biology has on gendered behavior, the mixed results rather may be due to problems that are foundational to evolutionary psychology itself. For those interested in evolutionary perspectives of men and women’s behavior, they should look beyond evolutionary psychology and examine what evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology can provide to our understanding of reproductive strategies. This is evident in feminist and female evolutionists’ works that have created a new model of sexual dialectics, begun the retesting of A. J. Bateman’s foundational work that underlies parental investment theory and Sexual Strategies Theory, and provided new evidence of phenotypic and behavioral plasticity. This research has called into question past assumptions of male dominance and female passivity in mating, and continues to challenge evolutionary psychology’s claim that based on Sexual Strategies Theory, there are evolved psychological gender differences between men and women in their desire for short-term mating opportunities and sexual variety that are rooted in our evolutionary past and not very responsive to the current environments within which men and women are making these reproductive decisions.     

Examining the acceptance of and resistance to evolutionary psychology

The field of psychology remains a divided one. Several different sub-disciplines (e.g., developmental, cognitive, behaviorism, social, etc.) form what could be a unified scientific area. However, there is no widely accepted theory of unification. Charles Darwin once theorized that evolutionary theory would change the foundation of psychology; but over the years, evolutionary psychology has been met with hostile resistance from some of the prominent psychologists within the other sub-disciplines. Yet in recent years, all of the divided sub-disciplines of psychology have been slowly implementing evolutionary principles into their literature and research. This slow integration of evolutionary psychology into the other sub-disciplines indicates the possibility of a unified psychology with evolution as its foundation. This paper briefly reviews the literature within each major sub-discipline of psychology to show their implementation of evolutionary psychological theories, indicating the possibility of evolutionary psychology becoming the unifying paradigm upon which the entire field of psychology can be based. A call for action to continue this process is also discussed.     

有性Penna模型:进化心理学的新工具

进化心理学家以进化论为基础,使用了许多不同的方法来研究人类的心灵。这些方法都有共同的缺陷,即无法直接对提出的假设进行验证,对复杂的系统进行研究难度很大,计算机模拟的方法可在一定程度上修补该问题。有性Penna模型能反映有性生殖种群的进化特点,能反映环境对生物进化的影响,通过该模型来模拟人类进化历程,则可以检验某一心理机制是否是适应的,它是研究生物进化的有力工具。本文在综述已有研究成果的基础上提出用有性Penna模型对进化心理学关于进化轨迹的假设进行验证的构想,并在此基础之上提出了用该模型进行研究的基本框架。