Friday, May 8, 2015

15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csEAmUW61bg
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