a recent study published in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience found evidence for sex differences in brain functional connectivity in utero and therefore presumably before socialization could possibly have been at play
Later in the essay:
I believe that most of the resistance to evolutionary psychology both then and now stems from two fallacies: (1) that the nasty aspects of our human nature, such as tendencies for violence, are natural and therefore, good. This is known as the naturalistic fallacy; and (2) that an evolved human nature necessarily implies genetic determinism and inflexibility
The naturalistic fallacy is that what is natural is good. What I might call the converse of the naturalistic fallacy is that what is good must be natural. So if it is good to be nonviolent, it must be natural to be nonviolent. I think that this converse of the naturalistic fallacy is what underlies some of the opposition to evolutionary psychology.
Everyone agrees that human behavior reflects both natural instincts and social constraints, with the latter coming from traditional norms and institutions. One might say that the inclination on the left is to see the natural instincts as good and the social constraints as causing problems. And the inclination on the right is to see the natural instincts as causing problems and the social constraints as good.
Later in the essay:
It is my contention that sociocultural factors that have been proposed in place of evolutionary factors as causal influences on mind and behavior have been overstated, while the importance of evolutionary factors have been understated.
That correlates with the predominance of the ideological left in academia.
Mackiel’s essay refers to a paper by David M. Buss and William von Hippel. The authors write
We conclude with the irony that our evolved psychology may interfere with the scientific understanding of our evolved psychology.
“Everyone agrees that human behavior reflects both natural instincts and social constraints”
Nature vs nurture. Do you really see the nurturing part as always putting constraints on behavior? Seems to me that it sometimes encourages bad behaviors also. By and large we dont go around chopping off heads and committing mass murder, but join the wrong group and you will be taught/encouraged to do those things. The nurturing part can also produce good behaviors, just depends upon the group you are in.
Cant say that I generally buy into our nature is always good or bad argument either. How do you explain psychopaths, or the kids with attachment disorder? Conversely, you sometimes see kids who are brought up in horrible environments becoming really good people. So, I think there are inate qualities given to us by our genes, but I have a hard time seeing anyone making a strong case that we are all intrinsically good or bad.
Steve
Modern politics is based on “we can fix that.” And the academy is the major institution that fleshes out that faith. Not surprising that it reacts with horror to ideas which suggest there are important inherent constraints.
Also not surprising there is little pushback from Republicans. Nobody runs on, “actually, we can’t.”
“One might say that the inclination on the left is to see the natural instincts as good and the social constraints as causing problems. And the inclination on the right is to see the natural instincts as causing problems and the social constraints as good.”
Sorry, have to push back on this. Humans are social animals so attempting to brand social constraints as abnormal reeks of ideologically motivated reasoning. Recent scholarship, for example, demonstrates that capital punishment is a cultural universal constant practiced in all cultures. This constraint has contributed to the social process by which humans have self-domesticated and produced a species with a much lower propensity for reactively violent behavior and thereby generating high proportions of beta males in the population. There is no separating the social from the instinctive.
This, of course, does not sit well with libertarian ideology, proponents of which seem to share a bigoted and uninformed view of life in the hinterlands. Lets call it the Footlose school of rural enthnographic bias. Urban libertarians view small towns as bastions of unenlightened conservatism where all creative impulses are smothered in the crib. Hence, the need for an urban savior to descend into their midst and liberate them from their hoary social customs. If the Footloose reference is too old, then think Napolean Dynamite. It that is too old, forget movie references that is about when I quit going. Think instead Tyler Cowen on his holy crusade to introduce returns to scale to all the wasted human resources out there who would be much more productive if only they could be moved into cities and forced to work in big businesses.
Conservatives tend to be more respectful and agnostic towards the mysteries of human behavior and realize that social constraints have evolved and that kneeling before every would-be priest-king professor noodling up some theory of how, if people would just submit, GDP could be increased.
Progressives really have no clear lines of thought on social evolution either. Mostly just whatever it takes to force people to fall into line for Dear Leader X’s vision of the promised land. If keeping the female voting bloc intact means ridding the academy of certain findings, so be it.
Taken together, I would argue that this implies that the world would be better off with smaller, more self-sufficient countries supporting far smaller elite classes with nothing better to do with their time than attempt to control others.
I see a lot of right-wingers these days saying that the natural instinct towards in-group favoritism (ethnic nationalism, neighborhood segregation) is good, and that the social constraints imposed by “liberals” to live near and among people of different races or ethnic groups as bad and causing problems.
It’s really a mixed bag on both sides.