Back to basics- that is the prevailing framework highlighted by the approach of evolutionary psychology. It emphasizes the concept of being “FIT” to be able to bear offspring of their own. Hence, the need to survive and reproduce calls not only for the benefit of the person himself but rather including the genes that he carries.
With such a basic framework of contention, this approach has fired several reviews and critics. As a matter of fact, the earliest I have encountered was thrown to me by my Social Psychology instructor asking, “So which should it be Ms. Gallego, nature or nurture?” I had it always in my mind to say neither is more important than the other. Nature affects nurture and nurture also influences nature.
That was then.
Nature viewed in the context of evolutionary psychology, covers the innate biological requirement to survive and persist hence influencing human behavior to achieve reproductive fitness. Those who fail to adapt to this prerequisite fails to carry on genes with the succeeding generations. With this conviction, it is safe to say that the population of today is therefore a product of the evolving need for survival of the past generations.
Some critics argue that evolutionary psychology fails to consider the role of the environment in shaping human behavior. Albert Bandura for one rejects what he believed to be a “one-sided evolutionism” and pointed that environmental and biological conditions influence each other. Other critics like Hilary and Steven Rose (2000) labeled the views of evolutionary psychology to be upholding behavioral fixity (Kurzban 2002, p. 99-109). They say that the approach dwell so much on genetic predispositions dismissing cultural, historical and individual variables.
The critics above actually failed to go back to the “basic” ally of evolutionary Psychologists- the principle of survival. The need to survive propels behavior. Evolution did not only give us bodily structures and biological potentialities. It gave us the purpose. Behavioral flexibility is therefore a fundamental message of evolutionary psychologists. Every feature of the human body, from the genes to the phenotypes they carry, were designed to develop, learn and behave in ways that will bring about genetic survival in generations. Evolutionary psychology does not reject the role of culture, history, and individual variables. It actually believes that organisms behave contingently in the environment and their own current state.
Behavioral adjustments enable them to tune with environmental expectations. Tuning up means adaptation and adaptation brings about survival. Survival enables reproduction and reproduction facilitates the passage of genetic material to the next generation.
To FIT. This is the role of every living organism- to adapt and to be able to fit. Adaptation, like any other process is dynamic. They can also generate by products and random effects. Each adaptation generates different conditional possibility. Let’s take the analogy of Edward H. Hagen, and evolutionary psychologist from the Institute of Theoretical Biology, Berlin.
“Consider a hypothetical population of organisms whose ‘natures ‘ (adaptation) are completely genetically specified and unchangeable, and just to keep things simple, whose natures are identical. Suppose, further that these organisms have a number of identical preferences, desires, what-have-you (all unchangeable), but because resources are limited , they often find that social circumstances are at odds with their preferences and not all individuals can fulfill their desires. In other words, these creatures are often in conflict with one another. Suppose that these organisms have the ability to negotiate with one another by offering and withholding benefits, and perhaps by imposing costs. Because our hypothetical organisms are able to negotiate, they are able to form social arrangements that are potentially equitable."
Adaptation, like the nature or the hypothetical organism in this analogy, can be similar in many ways. This process, however is more complex than just being a necessary strategy to survive. Even if a circumstance like the goal to survive is so much identical in majority of the population, environmental outcomes will always be enormous. That is, even if each adaptation is done to preserve gene survival, its possible genetic consequence might not be geared towards this initial goal. Gene by products and random effects may also initiate the genetic loss in the survival lineage. Like Hagen’s statement, that “When circumstances change, new agreements can be forged,” the standards of “fitness” could also change with time. Hence, natural selection is not only one source of change. Then again, survival is. If generic survival is the main goal, human survival and reproduction is the basic strategy. You see, one thing I want to place in the context of persuasiveness is not the argument that each of these approaches lay on the table. The basic principle that they carry wins over a significant number of other options. Evolutionary psychology is what psychoanalysts call “id” and the behaviorists call the “reinforced behavior”. It could explain several other psychological principles hence it cannot be dissuaded against.
I was once asked by my Social Psychology instructor, “So which should it be Ms. Gallego, nature or nurture?” Now I have the best option for that. Basic human nature...
SURVIVAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment