Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:55:04.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Behaviors Be Adaptations?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Catherine Driscoll
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kim Sterelny and Paul Griffiths (Sterelny 1992, Sterelny and Griffiths 1999) have argued that sociobiology is unworkable because it requires that human behaviors can be adaptations; however, behaviors produced by a functionalist psychology do not meet Lewontin's quasi-independence criterion and therefore cannot be adaptations. Consequently, an evolutionary psychology—which regards psychological mechanisms as adaptations—should replace sociobiology. I address two interpretations of their argument. I argue that the strong interpretation fails because functionalist psychology need not prevent behaviors from evolving independently, and it relies on too strong an interpretation of the quasi-independence criterion. The weaker interpretation does not undermine sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology would be vulnerable to the same criticism. Finally, I offer reasons to think that both mental mechanisms and behaviors can be adaptations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 16 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Many thanks to Stephen Stich for numerous comments on earlier drafts of this paper; to Karen Neander and Ted Sider for their very helpful remarks; and to several anonymous reviewers who made comments on an earlier submitted version.

References

Arnold, Stevan J. (1981), “Behavioral Variation in Natural Populations. I. Phenotypic, Genetic and Environmental Correlations between Chemoreceptive Responses to Prey in the Garter Snake, Thamnophis elegans”, Behavioral Variation in Natural Populations. I. Phenotypic, Genetic and Environmental Correlations between Chemoreceptive Responses to Prey in the Garter Snake, Thamnophis elegans 35(3): 489–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Blair, R. J. R., Morris, J. S., Frith, C. D., Perrett, D. I., and Dolan, R. J. (1999), “Dissociable Neural Responses to Facial Expressions of Sadness and Anger”, Dissociable Neural Responses to Facial Expressions of Sadness and Anger 122:883–893.Google ScholarPubMed
Brodie, Edmund D. III (1989), “Genetic Correlations between Morphology and Antipredator Behavior in Natural Populations of the Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides”, Genetic Correlations between Morphology and Antipredator Behavior in Natural Populations of the Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides 342:542–543.Google ScholarPubMed
Brodie, Edmund D. III (1993), “Homogeneity of the Genetic Variance-Covariance Matrix for Antipredator Traits in Two Natural Populations of the Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides”, Homogeneity of the Genetic Variance-Covariance Matrix for Antipredator Traits in Two Natural Populations of the Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides 47(3): 844–854.Google ScholarPubMed
Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John (1987), “From Evolution to Behavior: Evolutionary Psychology as the Missing Link”, in Dupre, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 277–306.Google Scholar
Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John (1992), “Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange”, in Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John (eds.), The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 163–288.Google Scholar
Daly, Martin, and Wilson, Margot (1996), “The Evolutionary Psychology of Homicide”, Demos Dec. 8, 1996, 39–45.Google Scholar
Davis, Michael (1992), “The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Anxiety”, The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Anxiety 15:353–375.Google ScholarPubMed
Gould, Stephen J. (2000), “More Things in Heaven and Earth”, in Rose, Hilary and Rose, Stephen (eds.), Alas, Poor Darwin. New York: Harmony Press, 101–126.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J., and Lewontin, Richard (1978), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, in Sober, Elliot (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–90. First published in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer (1999), Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants and Natural Selection, New York: Pantheon/Random House.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1985), Vaulting Ambition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1978), “Adaptation”, Adaptation 239(3): 212–230.Google ScholarPubMed
Maynard Smith, John (1978), “Optimization Theory in Evolution”, Optimization Theory in Evolution 9:31–56.Google Scholar
Parker, Geoffrey A., and Smith, John Maynard (1990), “Optimality Theory in Evolutionary Biology”, Optimality Theory in Evolutionary Biology 348:27–33.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim (1992), “Evolutionary Explanations of Human Behavior”, Evolutionary Explanations of Human Behavior 70(2): 156–172.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Griffiths, Paul (1999), Sex and Death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. (1975), Sociobiology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar