An excellent book in which David Buller (a philosopher of biology at NIU) considers in detail some of the strongest claims made by Evolutionary Psychologists (the likes of Pinker, Tooby, Cosmides, etc.) for a "universal human nature" arising from psychological adaptations of the human mind during the Pleistocene. Beware that the writing is dense and you will need to concentrate to follow all the arguments; the book is long and not an easy read. As a scientist I have always been skeptical of the second part of the saying, "philosophy without science is empty, science without philosophy is blind" (of which Buller's web page reminded me), but Buller's book gives a very convincing example of science (a specific type of "Evolutionary Psychology") which, in its eagerness to explain human nature, seems to have taken some dangerous "leaps of faith".
Buller's book could be easily dismissed as a simple criticism of Evolutionary Psychology, but the detailed test of some well publicized ideas is only part of the work. Buller starts with an engaging four-chapter introduction, considering in detail the concepts of evolution (1), mind (2), adaptation (3), and modularity (4). These, together with the last chapter on "human nature", contain the basis of his understanding of evolution and its implications for the evolution of human behavior. The remaining three chapters consider in excruciating detail the specific arguments for and against some of the central tenets of Evolutionary Psychology -- on human mating preferences, marriage, and parenthood. Buller argues that evolution is a process, not a framework which uses natural selection to explain finished products. He argues that Homo Sapiens and all species are "individuals" (spaciotemporally localized, continuous and cohesive) in view of evolution and not "natural kinds" (defined by an essential characteristic), that human psychological mechanisms are homologies (unified by common descent) and will not follow simple laws of nature that pertain exclusively to the human mind (although they will follow laws that pertain to all evolved minds). He suggests that the human universals that we observe today are not necessarily evidence of physiological universals evolved as adaptations when humans were hunter-gatherers. Some observed "cultural universals" could be a result of frequency-dependent selection within populations that has succeeded in maintaining similar balanced polymorphisms of psychological phenotypes in most cultures. He cites epidemiological culture as another possibility.
This is easily the most thought provoking book I have read on "human nature" for a variety of reasons. First, Buller never simply criticizes other people's ideas by criticizing their proponents and/or changing the subject and criticizing other aspects of their work. He is content to criticize the ideas themselves based on their contextual frame and existing empirical support. Moreover he is always careful to define precisely the aspect of the idea he will explain and criticize, as well as to present alternative hypotheses, if he believes the data was misunderstood or misinterpreted. Second, he is never condescending toward his readers by suggesting they trust him that the Evolutionary Psychologists' theory on "human nature" or the details of specific claim on evolved modules in the mind are misconceived or plain wrong. Buller takes the time to explain precisely how he reached each conclusion, allowing the reader to follow his logic, see some of the data, and judge for her/him-self. This is quite admirable considering that most authors write books either for academics (where, as in Buller's "Adapting Mind", the devil is in the details) or for popular readers (who often stand to be entertained rather that taken seriously and lead through an argument).
I believe this book is for amateurs and academics alike. It will provide a thoughtful commentary on the subject of human nature for the former and a thought provoking criticism of a field of research with far too many loose ends for the later.
I read Robert Wright's celebrated "Moral Animal" some 10 years ago, and was thoroughly impressed. Finally I had found a theory of human nature and psychology I could wholeheartedly believe in. Now along comes David Buller and says it's not so? Well, not so fast. This book is not so much a dismantling of the theory of evolutionary psychology as it is an assertion that the original evidence used in forming evo/psych (EP) - may have been overinterpreted.
Disclaimer: For those who were offended by the very suggestion that our behavior is just a more sophisticated version of similar behavior by our primate ancestors - you won't like this book, either.
Buller's complaints about EP:
EP theory is off-base in considering the brain to consist of thousands of evolved "modules." Instead, in his version, the mind is "adapted to adapt" to highly variable and rapidly changing environments.
He differs from EP thought, also, in that he thinks we are not psychological relics of our stone age ancestors - we have continued to evolve. Buller cites studies suggesting that N/S can overhaul species adaptations in 18 generations (450 years for humans) - concentrating on "cortical plasticity," thus his title "Adapting Minds."
He questions (among other things) the evidence for EP's conclusions about the human sexual behaviors of infidelity and jealousy, and the different (male vs female) manifestations of these traits.
He questions statistics that suggest step-children are frequently and almost predictably mistreated (compared to genetic children) by step-parents. EP absorbed completely the step-parent/step-children studies of Daly and Wilson, and Buller is particularly critical here.
He is negative about the EP advocacy of the "cheater-detection" module, an important section of EP studies.
I am not an expert in this field, but my feeling is that EP will weather this tropical disturbance. Psychology in general is a difficult field for data analysis - the same data in psychology can easily be logically interpreted in several different ways - much more so than data in, say, chemistry or physics.
I realize the following assessment of mine is anecdotal, but here goes: I have seen step-children treated differently than genetic children. I have seen how men and women pair off in society according to commonly accepted determinants of status, differing depending on sex. I have read about and subsequently observed how people (unconsciously?) score each other during their social interactions, rating relationship values for the future. I have observed how cheating (generic sense) is more rampant in very large groups where peer-pressure ceases to be such an important deterent. Finally, game theory concepts utilized in EP are widely adapted and used in self-help books. In short, I'm a sucker for EP.
At the same time, if some of the conclusions of EP are not right on target, books like Buller's can be valuable in order to stimulate more finely-tuned studies and to verify those conclusions that are valid. Nobody in science would suggest that every discipline always gets all the nuances just right the first time around. Perhaps this is the take-home message of Buller's book.
