Evolutionary Psychology II

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.