So, here’s an overview of current Schools of Thought tackling Human Behavioural Evolution:
| School | Neo-Darwinistic Sociobiology | Human Behavioural Ecology | Environmental Psychology | Dual-Inverse Theory | Memetics |
| Focus of selection | Gene / individual / group | Individual / behaviour | Individual / behaviour / psychological mechanism |
Individual / group / gene / culture variantPotential / predicted impact on genetic and cultural fitness | Meme / gene |
| Measure of natural selection | Reproductive success or proxy measure of fitness |
Reproductive success of proxy measure of fitness (enegetic balance) |
Potential / predicted impact on reproductive success / fitness |
Potential / predicted impact on genetic and cultural fitness |
Potential impact on genic and memic fitness |
| Methodology | Genic functionalism- construct genic level fitness enhancing / optimality models, test data against them |
Test data against optimality models, ecological expectations / prediction models from behavioral ecology |
Construct selection scenarios and describe predicted fitness increasing strategies, test with datasets |
Construct mathematical and conceptual models and simulations, sometimes test with datasets |
Construct selection scenarios, controlled thought experiments |
| Core causes of evolution of human behaviour | Genetic evolution produces both human general behavioural capacities and specific behavioural patterns / strategies |
Behaviour and behavioural strategies arise from adaptation to ecological and other selective pressures |
Psychological mechanisms (and thus behaviour) arose/arise through adaptation to pressures of the Environment or Evolutionary Adaptiveness (Pleistocene) and Adaptivity Relevant Environments |
Gene-culture coevolution results in patterns of complex, symbolic and linguistic human behaviour |
Selfish meme replication and meme-gene coevolution result in most human behaviour |
| Basic premise(s) | Humans are very complex and highly social animals whose behaviour is best analyzed via Neo-Darwinian approaches |
Humans, while highly adaptable, can be modeled using same premises as other animals, socioecological contexts drive most selection pressures |
Human universals and human behavioural strategies are reflections of adapted modules (psychological mechanisms) in the mind |
Humans are under genic and group selection for physical and cultural traits; culture and genetic co-evolve via natural selection |
Memes/memeplexes are primarily responsible for human behavioural variation and culture |
| Data | Ethnographic datasets, observations, comparisons with other animals especially primates, fossil record |
Behaviour observations, physiological and ecological measurements, ethnographic datasets |
Questionnaires, surveys, interviews, demographic and behavioural datasets, public records |
Ethnographic datasets, mathematical models | Popular ethnography, survey and interviews, general cultural information |
Adapted from Fuentes, A. (2009), Evolution of Human Behavior, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, p. 60-61.
I would be interested in knowing your own thoughts about all of this. (No rush on that, of course, as I would hope to get something a bit in-depth. Perhaps something for a future post?)
Is Fuentes merely giving a survey of the competing theories of human behavior, or is he also offering his own perspectives of those theories and which, if any, he thinks are on the right track?
Do you recommend the book? (Perhaps more specifically, can you make any comparison between this and others you may have read that you found very good?)
I certainly find this sort of topic *highly* interesting despite never having studied it. But alas, what *don’t* I find interesting? Too much to ever study it all, or even half…
Fuentes is attempting an overview. I’ll try to honour your request for my detailed take on all this when the time is ripe. For now, I will say this much:
(1) The five strands that Fuentes isolates are highly theoretical in nature, and make suspiciously little use of palaeontology, archaeology and mammal/primate/hominid behaviour studies. I suspect Fuentes would agree.
(2) The difference between the tabulated theoretical approaches hinges largely on the choice of unit of analysis: groups, kin, individuals, genes; cultural units, memes. Whether implicitly or explicitly, these disparate approaches are going to have to take a stand on Reduction somewhere.
Yes, I recommend the book highly. It’s the most up-to-date single-volume treatment on the issue that I know of. Although it can hardly avoid being sparing in detail, it provides a good platform for deeper exploration.