I just completed the follow up lecture series Evolutionary Psychology II by The Modern
Scholar © series. This course, like the first volume, was presented by
Professor Allen D. MacNeill of Cornell
University. His academic
background and qualifications can be found in my previous entry. Like the first
volume in the series, this course consists of fourteen one-half hour lectures.
This second volume of lectures is more focused than the
first. There are basically three separate topics presented over the seven
hours: politics and warfare, religion, and individuality. Each of these areas
is discussed from the evolutionary psychology perspective with a particular
focus on the nature of adaptation.
Professor MacNeill first discusses the character of human
societies. Human societies are a lot like most animal societies. They are made
up of several different social groups each interacting with the other “in
complex and fascinating ways.” At times, individuals engage in competition with
members of their own group; however, they usually cooperate with fellow group
members to further their own interests and the interests of the group. The
evolution of social behavior in human beings “depends on the evolution of the
capacity for cooperation, which can evolve as the result of kin selection,
reciprocal altruism, and group selection.”
Kin selection refers to an individual’s tendency to
cooperate with those who are closely related so that their genes will increase
in frequency in the population over time. According to evolutionary theory,
those who sacrifice part or all of their individual fitness for the sake of
their offspring do so because in the past this behavior has led to more of
their genes being expressed in future generations as compared to those who act
purely selfishly.
Using an example from the animal kingdom, Professor MacNeill
explained that animals that cooperate with individuals and groups who are not
genetically related in a symbiotic relationship. For example, he asserts, “there
are acacia trees in Africa called “whistling
thorns” that are inhabited by ant species that protect the trees from insects
and other herbivores that might eat or otherwise damage the trees. In return
for such protection, the acacia trees produce bulbous thorns where the ants lay
their eggs and raise their young. The trees even provide food for the ants in
the form of nectar secreted at the bases of their leaves.” This type of mutual
symbiosis describes what evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers termed reciprocal
altruism.
Five of the next lectures focus on religion as part of the
human experience. The professor first reviewed the neurobiology of religious
experience. He explained that humans have evolved to have transcendent
experiences. Religion also plays an important role in promoting pro-social
behaviors. One of the most interesting arguments he made, from several
different approaches, was that the same impulses that drive religious
experience drive the tendency for humans to engage in warfare. In fact,
according to Professor MacNeill, religiosity is essential to war—and the two
are often intertwined closely throughout most of history’s armed
conflicts.
Professor MacNeill presented one of the most compelling
statements in any lecture series that I have had the pleasure to hear. It
concerns the nature of scientific inquiry and those who would turn their back
on science and reason as tools for understanding the world. He said:
The fact that a non-scientist, or a
person who chooses not to use scientific reasoning, cannot imagine a
naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon is neither a logical nor compelling
argument against that explanation. On the contrary, it is an admission of
ignorance, willful or otherwise. Now, ignorance by itself is no sin, it simply
means that one has not yet had the opportunity to learn something. But
ignorance in the face of the opportunity to learn is not ignorance at all: it
is stupidity. Science is a socially organized determined effort to minimize
ignorance in all its forms. It is the opposite of stupidity.
Many people would balk at the ideas presented in these
lecture series, and indeed, some inferences do seem to require a “stretch” to
be believed. However, I contend that this field of study provides valuable
insights into the way in which natural selection and evolutionary forces have
shaped and continue to shape human culture and individual behavior. I must
admit that I find some strains of argument too deterministic for my taste. I
have no problem with human consciousness as an emergent phenomenon from various
disparate neurological functions, but I think it is too complex and our
understanding too scarce to apply reductionism to the point that many natural
and social scientists often have. Whatever the reality, I believe that further
study in cognitive science and evolutionary psychology will continue to enhance
our understanding of how we think, act, and are influenced by the environment.
