Social
Evolution
Robert
Trivers
I
dabbled in several disciplines, but found myself disappointed in each. History,
political science, economics, and psychology all expressed interesting views on
human behavior, but none of these views seemed to have a secure foundation in
pre-existing knowledge. For example, Western economics usually assumes that
individuals are out to maximize personal gain, but where is the scientific
justification for this assumption? And what is exactly “personal gain”? Much of
psychology at the time assumed that human behavior is built entirely from
learning experiences and that a theory of learning is the actual basis for any
theory of human behavior. But psychology could give no coherent account of how
these learning abilities are organized in us and toward what end we are
learning what we are learning. (p. 1)
Our
attention is focused on
variability within a population. We wish to see how variability
in the traits of individuals is associated with variability in reproductive
success. This represents an important break with pre-Darwinian biology. In the
old system, each species was imagined to have been created according to some
ideal type. Variation was just so much noise superimposed on the ideal type.
After
Since traits are only defined as
useful by reference to a given environment, the concept of natural selection
provides no objective support for terms like "higher" or
"lower". ... The chief effect of using terms like "higher"
and "lower" is to underestimate the powers of other creatures;
"lower" animals, for example, are often assumed to be too dumb to act
in their own self-interest. Unfortunately, this assumption --- often
unconscious --- merely blinds us to the true nature of these creatures. (p. 32)
In the fall mating season, males
fight with each other to control mating access to groups of females. During
this time, the frequency of fighting and the number of injuries sustained is
positively associated with the frequency with which females are conceiving.
Just like the piglets in Figure 2-3,
Comments: Why it is so peaceful
here? Probably there is no much valuable to fight for.
All
creatures must consume something of value in order to live and must consume
more in order to grow and reproduce. This consumption is often at the expense
of other members of the same species, so that even staying alive may, in
effect, be a selfish act. Reproduction, in turn, is intrinsically social ---
genes and energy are invested in the production of others --- and in many
species this also requires the cooperation of two individuals (male and
female). (p. 64)
From
these observations, it seems likely that weaning conflict among monkeys is a
costly process for the infants, its mother, and possibly for other troop
members. Certainly the daily harassment of mother is costly in energy to infant
and mother. The calls themselves may bring on predators and threaten the entire
troop. Why, then, do we witness such intense parent --- offspring conflict in
nature? (p. 146)
Comments:
This applies to infant industry as well.
Another
popular view is a fundamental conflict between biology and culture. The baby is
viewed as innate selfish and greedy and in need of socialization in order to
become a full culture-bearing creature. (p. 147)
Comments:
in social sciences, people often argue the same line that human beings are
cultured and hence biological explanations don’t always apply. But sociobiology
is developed to under social behaviors with biological theory
Thus
there is an overlap in self-interest between parent and offspring, but not an
identity of self-interest. (p. 148)
Comment:
This can explain most social behaviors.
Some
people are reluctant to admit to biological differences between the human
sexes. They grant that menstruation, gestation, and lactation belong to women
and ejaculation to men, but beyond this they believe the sexes are essentially
identical. Some of this view is undoubtedly a response to centuries of claims
that women were biologically inferior and that
men were created or selected at the level of the species to perform
wonderful, higher-level functions denied to women. The approach taken in this
book gives no support for the notion of biological inferiority. Each sex, far
from having evolved traits at the level of the species, is governed by
individual reproductive advantage, sometimes in conflict with that of the
other, and sex differences evolved because of an underlying differences
in the work each invests --- or fails to invest --- in the raising of the
offspring. If anything, male traits now threaten human species survival, since
the potentially high reproductive success of males more easily tempts them into
policies of aggression and aggrandizement. (p. 301)
In
mammals and reptiles, males are usually XY and females XX, and males suffer
higher mortality than do females. In fish, however, both sexes are usually XX
and yet males still suffer higher mortality. In birds, females are XY and males
XX, yet males still suffer higher mortality rates in those species of birds that
lack male parental investment. (p. 307)
Comments:
I read that in birds, females disperse more than males. Is that because females
are XY and males are XX. Read more.
The most obvious effect of sex is
the production of genetically variable offspring. A sexual reproduction usually
results in offspring that are genetically identical copies of their mothers,
but sex, through meiosis and recombination, gives rise to a wide array of
genetically unique offspring. There must be some positive value associated with
the production of genetic variability, but what exactly is it? (p. 315)
Comments: The advantage of
genetic variability can be used to argue against the idea of general
equilibrium theory. We also can argue against the pursuit to rate of growth in
economic activities. Asexual reproduction is much faster over short term. We
can understand social patterns in environments where population density is low
and high. In places where population density is low, marriages between
genetically and culturally close people may generate high rate of growth in
population. But in densely populated environment, cross ethnic and cultural
relations may benefit more. I have to think more about it.
One of the most important things
to realize about systems of animal communication is that they are not systems
for the dissemination of the truth. An animal may be selected to convey correct
information, misinformation, or both. ... With powers to deceive and to
spot deception being improved by natural selection, a new kind of deception may
be favored: self-deception. Self deception renders
the deception being practiced unconscious to the practioner,
thereby hiding from other individuals the subtle signs of self-knowledge that
give away the deception being practiced. (p. 395)
One particular consequence of
deception deserves special attention: self-deception, that is hiding the truth
from the conscious mind the better to hide it from others. In our own species
we recognize that shifty eyes, sweaty palms, and croaky voices may indicate the
stress that accompanies conscious knowledge of attempted deception. By becoming
unconscious of its deception, the deceiver hides these signs from the observer.
He or she can lie without the nervousness that accompanies deception. (p. 416)
In human evolution, process of
deception and self-deception were greatly heightened by the advent of language.
language permits individuals to make statements about
events distant in time and space, and these are least amenable to
contradiction. Thus language permits verbal deception of many different kinds.
Since contradictory information is not available at the moment a deception is
being practiced, there may be heightened attention to signs of conscious intent
to deceive, and this will favor mechanisms of self-deception. ... individuals readily create entire belief systems with self serving biases, and the more skillfully these self-serving
components are hidden from both the self and others, the more difficult it will
be to counter them. (p. 416)
Self-confidence is a piece of
information that may give useful information about the individual displaying
it. If a male is facing off another male in an aggressive encounter, or is
courting a female, he may be evaluated partly according to his self-confidence.
A certain amount of self-deception in that situation may give a convincing
image of his high self-esteem, thereby impressing others. (p. 416)
We tend to deny responsibility
when we harm others. we either deny the harm or we deny that we ourselves are
responsible. We have a tendency to exaggerate our own role in a beneficial
outcome. For example, experiments in which groups of people are involved in a
common task show that when group utcome is positive
people evaluate their own contribution as a higher percentage of total effort
than they contributed. And the reverse is true when the outcome is negative.
The tendency to deny
responsibility for harmful outcomes sometimes takes the form of switching from
an active to passive voice. If the outcome is good, then we played an active
role; if it is bad, we were a passive victim of circumstances. (p. 419)
The illusion of consistency: ...
This ploy was summarized by George Orwell in his novel 1984, while talking
about leadership: "The secret of rulership is to
combine a belief in one's own infallibility with a power to learn from past
mistakes." (p. 419)