https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csEAmUW61bg
Watch Some Geoffrey! Especially At 42:11!
Watch Some Geoffrey! Especially At 42:11!
READ SOME GEOFFREY, SPECIFICALLY #2 AND #3. THEN TELL ME IF YOU UNDERSTANDS IT.
FEAR OF FITNESS INDICATORS
The ideological problems with the fitness indicator theory of human evolution
The argument thus far has been, roughly:
·
Some of our most distinctive mental
traits (e.g. art, music, language, creativity, ideology) are hard to explain as
survival adaptations
·
Darwin’s process of sexual selection
through mate choice can explain many traits in many species that are hard to
explain as survival adaptations
·
Sexual selection often produces
“fitness indicators” – traits that advertise an individual’s genetic quality
through conspicuous cost and precision
·
Fitness indicators follow the “truth
in advertising” logic of biological signaling theory, which is similar to
theories of wealth-signaling and product-quality-signaling in economics, and
theories of social-status-signaling in sociology
·
Some human mental traits and cultural
forms have already been analyzed as wealth-signals and status-signals, so it is
not a great reach to consider them as possible fitness-signals as well
Some human mental traits and cultural
forms bear other hallmarks of sexual selection, so they may serve the same
biological function (mate-attraction) as fitness-signals in other species
In
response to longer versions of this argument (e.g. reviews of my book The
mating mind, and questions after my public talks), two reactions are often
voiced: “So what?” and “Oh no!”. The “So
what?” reaction I deal with at much greater length in the book itself. My focus for the rest of the paper here is on
the “Oh no!” reaction. Often, this
reaction arises from concerns about the political, religious, and ideological
implications of this fitness-indicator view of human mental evolution and of
human culture.
Basically, the idea that the human mind evolved as
a bundle of fitness indicators does not sit comfortably with contemporary views
of human nature and human society. In
fact, it violates at least six core values commonly accepted in modern society:
1. Fitness
variation vs. human equality.
Fitness indicators are designed by evolution to reveal individual
differences in general intelligence, health, fitness, and genetic quality. They maximize apparent differences between
people both objectively (by amplifying small differences in genetic quality
into big differences in apparent physical and psychological attractiveness),
and subjectively (by shaping our social-perception instincts to pay a great deal
of attention to fitness indicators).
This leads us to a virtual obsession with the minutiae of individual
differences in our social interactions – not only in mate choice, but in our
choices of friends, allies, co-workers, mentors, and leaders. Fitness indicators make all sorts of
differences loom very large indeed, including psychological differences in
intelligence, kindness, agreeableness, aggressiveness, conscientiousness,
conservatism, neuroticism, psychoticism, extroversion, and ideology. Insofar as different ages, sexes, ethnic
groups, and races may have somewhat different averages and degrees of variation
in these traits, our obsession with differences is easily generalized from
individuals to such groups, leading to various forms of ageism, sexism,
ethnocentrism, and racism. Necessarily, this difference-obsession also tends to
eclipse our awareness of what we humans have in common – and it is precisely
our common human nature that is the basis for the classical liberal
enlightenment concepts such as “human rights”, “equality before the law”,
“universal suffrage”, and “democracy”.
Thus, a descriptive emphasis on the role of fitness indicators in human
evolution appears to sit very uncomfortably with a normative respect for human
equality.
2. Judging
people by their indicators vs. by their character. A related problem is that the components of
genetic quality that are advertised by fitness indicators can seem quite
impersonal. If intelligence, creativity,
sense of humor, and even kindness are simply reflections of how many
mutation-free genes we carry, then human dignity may seem reducible to
DNA. Equally, when we think we are
judging people by unique, deeply personal
qualities, fitness indicator theory suggests we are really paying attention to
species-typical indicators that can be arrayed along dimensions of superiority
vs. inferiority. This viewpoint seems to
leave little room for developing a personal identity apart from one’s heritable
indicators, or for being judged by others as anything other than an
advertisement for one’s genes.
3. Mate
choice for good genes vs. romantic love.
This is really a special case of the above point, but it is an
especially important, emotionally charged special case. The fitness indicator view suggests that
sexual attraction is largely a matter of integrating physical and psychological
cues of genetic quality, and finding the highest-fitness partner who will
actually reciprocate one’s affection. By
identifying the major fitness indicators, the ways in which we weigh and
integrate them, and the ways in which we search for mates from the pool of
possibilities (e.g. Miller & Todd, 1998; Todd & Miller, 1999),
evolutionary psychology works to demystify human love and romance. Many of us do not want love demystified,
because the romantic commitments entailed by true love do not seem capable of
surviving such demystification. In short, we like to pretend that there was
only one predestined “true love” out there for us, and that we made no
comparative judgments concerning the relative fitness of our true love and
other potential mates. Indeed, putting
one’s marriage into the arena of comparative judgment risks undermining the
emotional commitments that keep one from wandering into infidelity and divorce.
Thus, fitness indicator theory seems hostile to the mythology of romantic love,
and to the emotional demands of marriage.
4. Heritable
fitness vs. parental and cultural influences on human development. A major discovery in sexual selection
research has been that many aspects of general fitness are heritable. Indeed, the most common evolutionary
rationale for mate choice may be that it allows individual to get better genes
for their offspring. Moreover, the
better a fitness indicator works as a cue of general genetic quality, the more
heritable will be individual differences in the quality of that indicator. This sounds fine in the abstract, but it
becomes problematic when we start viewing as fitness indicators many human
mental traits – such as general intelligence, language ability, sense of humor,
artistic ability, musical ability, kindness, and altruism. If intelligence is a good fitness indicator,
then intelligence is probably highly heritable – and all the behavior genetics
research suggests that it is (e.g. Plomin et al., 2001). Before the rise of fitness indicator theory,
it was possible to argue that heritable traits must not be that important,
because selection would have long ago eliminated any heritable variation in
traits that really mattered in survival or reproduction (see Miller,
2000b,c). However, fitness indicator
theory points out that some sexually-selected traits can remain both extremely
important in social and sexual life, and very highly heritable (Miller, 2000c;
Rowe & Houle, 1996). Thus,
heritability can no longer be taken as a symptom of evolutionary irrelevance.
This leaves the “nature vs. nurture” debate in a very unbalanced state, with
behavior genetics research showing “nature” (one’s genotype) looking ever more
powerful and socially important, leaving “nurture” (one’s shared family
environment in childhood) looking impotent.
That is, the quality of parenting and early family life simply doesn’t
influence how an individual will turn out as an adult, except in cases of
extreme abuse or neglect. Thus, a
descriptive emphasis on the role of fitness indicators in human evolution seems
to fit very poorly with a normative respect for the importance of parenting and
culture in individual human development.
We want parenting to be important to justify our efforts and
attentiveness as parents, but fitness indicator theory combined with behavior
genetics findings shows that this desire for parental relevance is largely
futile.
5. Narcissistic
self-display vs. civilized humility.
Loudly advertising one’s fitness violates our values of humility,
decorum, and tact. Fitness indicator
theory views self-display as central to human evolution, so could be construed
as providing an excuse for all manner of narcissistic showing-off – bragging,
strutting, consuming conspicuous luxuries, and derogating one’s less
extroverted rivals. Yet many cultural
norms have developed precisely to restrain runaway showing-off by rivals –
especially young, single, male rivals – within society. The law itself can be viewed largely as an
attempt by older, mated men to minimize the anti-social effects of runaway
status competition by young, single men.
These anti-social effects range from noise pollution (e.g. playing rock
or rap music at high volume from one’s car) to lethal violence (e.g. the
tendency of accidental slights to escalate into mortal combat among aggressive
young men). If fitness indicator theory
provides a clear, coherent rationale for such showing-off (i.e. it has high
reproductive payoffs), it becomes harder for older do-gooders to argue that all
such showing-off is irrational and contrary to the true interests of the
perpetrators. Indeed, fitness indicator theory appears to give the perpetrators
an ironclad excuse for all manner of loud, aggressive, self-display – fitness
signaling as a basic human right, perhaps.
Thus, highlighting the evolutionary payoffs to fitness signaling seems
to conflict with our desire to justify social norms against narcissistic
self-display and showing-off.
6.
Fitness signaling vs. transcendental cultural meaning. Perhaps the hardest thing to accept about
fitness indicator theory is what it does to the content of human cultural
creations, such as works of art, music, literature, and religious inspiration. It suggests that the content of such works is
a peripheral and somewhat incidental feature of the work’s function as a
fitness indicator. For indicators, form
is closely tied to function: indicators are most informative when they display
easy-to-assess “surface” qualities such as high cost, symmetry, regularity of
design, and accuracy of mimesis. To the
sexual selection theorist, the visual themes of a painting may be less
important than the monetary cost of the pigments used, the amount of time and
energy invested by the painter, and the correlation between the painter’s
manifest skill level and his or her mutation load. Fitness indicator theory
puts these “superficial” features at the heart of human cultural effort, and
relegates thematic content to the periphery, as just another form of cognitive
ornamentation. This viewpoint threatens
the Romantic-era ideologies of transcendence, genius, inspiration, salvation,
and social utility that remain the major popular justification for the arts,
the humanities, and religion. Thus,
fitness indicator theory seems corrosive to cultural content, symbolism, and
social values. It seems nihilistic to
propose that our capacities for language, art, and music evolved to proclaim
just one message that has been repeated loudly and insistently for thousands of
generations: “I am fit, my genes are good, mate with me”.
Resolving the ideological problems with fitness indicator theory
How is it possible for one biological concept to
affront so many of our fundamental values?
It seems quite astounding that a scientific idea should so consistently
fall on the wrong side of the ideological fence. I think it is no coincidence. Look at it this way: our human norms and
values developed as reactions to patterns of natural human behavior that we
decided should be discouraged. If a
great deal of human behavior consists of advertising one’s fitness, and if many
ways of doing that impose social costs on others, and if moral norms develop to
minimize social costs, then a lot of moral norms should be aimed directly
against the irresponsible use of fitness indicators. For example:
·
We teach equality to fight arrogance and
dominance, and to limit the subjective distress caused by inequality
·
We teach that everyone has a unique identity
apart from his or her indicators, to promote sympathy in our social and sexual
relationships
·
We teach romantic love to limit the callousness
with which we judge potential mates, to limit mate-switching and infidelity,
and to stabilize families
·
We teach that nurture is important, to remind
parents to care about the subjective well-being of their children
·
We teach humility to limit obnoxious showing-off
and fitness-displaying
·
We teach that cultural works have deep, socially
important meanings, to promote the production of cultural works that really may
have such meanings, rather than the superficial signs of high fitness.
These social norms do not just fall
randomly from the sky. They emerged as
moral instincts and cultural inventions to combat the excesses of sexual
self-advertisement and sexual competition.
Our moral aversion to fitness indicators may tempt us to reject them as
an important part of sexual selection.
But if we reject them, then it is hard to see how our moral norms
evolved in the first place. It is
possible, perhaps even necessary, to admit that much of human behavior evolved
to advertise fitness, while simultaneously realizing that the essence of wisdom
and morality is not to take our fitness indicators too seriously. This is not to say that our capacities for
wisdom and morality are cultural inventions that liberate us from the
imperatives of our genes. Our moral
instincts may be just another set of evolved adaptations. It is not question of “us” over-riding our
genetic predispositions, but of using one set of predispositions to over-rule
others – just as our evolved desire to preserve our looks can over-ride our
evolved tastes for fats and sugars.
A major prediction of fitness
indicator theory is that in every culture, and perhaps in every individual,
there should be a dynamic balance between our mating instincts for
fitness-display, and our moral instincts for restraining the social and
personal costs of runaway fitness-display and sexual competition. In many societies, certain groups of people
tend to become advocates for one side or the other. Often, it seems to me that the advocacy
groups break down as follows – on average, in most places and times:
Against runaway fitness signaling: For runaway fitness
signaling:
Women Men
Old folks Young
folks
Conservatives Liberals
Fascists, Communists Libertarians
Marxism Consumerism
The bourgeoisie The
bohemians
Monotheists Pagans
Obsessive-compulsives, Paranoids Narcissists, Psychopaths
Group-minded do-gooders Irresponsible
individualists
Economists Marketers,
Advertisers
Ecologists Sexual
selection theorists
Sociologists Socialites
Volkswagen-drivers Porsches-drivers
Immanuel Kant Friedrich
Nietzsche
Al Gore Bill
Clinton
Tipper Gore Britney
Spears
If this
amateur sociology is even vaguely correct, then we need not worry that the
advocates of fitness indicator theory will cause any permanent injury to the
social fabric. There will remain a dynamic ideological balance between those in
favor of runaway fitness signaling and those opposed to it, as long as we have
a demographically balanced society.
No comments:
Post a Comment