Results 1 - 10
of
932
The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments
- Ethology and Sociobiology
, 1990
"... Present conditions and selection pressures are irrelevant to the present design of orga-nisms and do not explain how or why organisms behave adaptively, when they do. To whatever non-chance extent organisms are behaving adaptively, it is 1) because of the operation of underlying adaptations whose pr ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 251 (19 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Present conditions and selection pressures are irrelevant to the present design of orga-nisms and do not explain how or why organisms behave adaptively, when they do. To whatever non-chance extent organisms are behaving adaptively, it is 1) because of the operation of underlying adaptations whose present design is the product of selection in the past, and 2) because present conditions resemble past conditions in those specific ways made developmentally and functionally important by the design of those adap-tations. All adaptations evolved in response to the repeating elements of past environ-ments, and their structure reflects in detail the recurrent structure of ancestral envi-ronments. Even planning mechanisms (such as “consciousness”), which supposedly deal with novel situations, depend on ancestrally shaped categorization processes and are therefore not free of the past. In fact, the categorization of each new situation into evolutionarily repeating classes involves another kind of adaptation, the emotions, which match specialized modes of organismic operation to evolutionarily recurrent situations. The detailed statistical structure of these iterated systems of events is re-flected in the detailed structure of the algorithms that govern emotional state. For this
Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds
- Biol
, 1980
"... Abstract. Many species of birds and mammals are faithful to their natal and breeding site or group. In most of them one sex is more philopatric than the other. In birds it is usually females which disperse more than males; in mammals it is usually males which disperse more than females. Reproductive ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 219 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Many species of birds and mammals are faithful to their natal and breeding site or group. In most of them one sex is more philopatric than the other. In birds it is usually females which disperse more than males; in mammals it is usually males which disperse more than females. Reproductive enhancement through increased access to mates or resources and the avoidance of inbreeding are important in promoting sex differences in dispersal. It is argued that the direction of the sex bias is a consequence of the type of mating system. Philopatry will favour the evolution of cooperative traits between members of the sedentary sex. Disruptive acts will be a feature of dispersers. Faithfulness to a site or group is a well docu-mented trait of many species of birds and mam-mals. It is particularly striking among adults which return to breed in the same area in succes-sive years. Migratory birds provide perhaps the most striking illustrations. In the colonially nest-ing common tern Sterna hirundo over half the returning adults reoccupy their previous mating
Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation
- Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation 53/1, Special
, 2004
"... In constructing improved models of human behavior, both experimental and behavioral economists have increasingly turned to evolutionary theory for insights into human psychology and preferences. Unfortunately, the existing genetic evolutionary approaches can explain neither the degree of prosocialit ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 199 (15 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In constructing improved models of human behavior, both experimental and behavioral economists have increasingly turned to evolutionary theory for insights into human psychology and preferences. Unfortunately, the existing genetic evolutionary approaches can explain neither the degree of prosociality (altruism and altruistic punishment) observed in humans, nor the patterns of variation in these behaviors across different behavioral domains and social groups. Ongoing misunderstandings about why certain models work, what they predict, and what the place is of “group selection ” in evolutionary theory have hampered the use of insights from biology and anthropology. This paper clarifies some of these issues and proposes an approach to the evolution of prosociality rooted in the interaction between cultural and genetic transmission. I explain how, in contrast to non-cultural species, the details of our evolved cultural learning capacities (e.g., imitative abilities) create the conditions for the cultural evolution of prosociality. By producing multiple behavioral equilibria, including group-beneficial equilibria, cultural evolution endogenously generates a mechanism of equilibrium selection that can favor prosociality. Finally, in the novel social environments left in the wake of these cultural evolutionary processes, natural selection is likely to favor prosocial genes
Models of parasite virulence.
- Q. Rev. Biol.
, 1996
"... ABSTRACT Several evolutionary processes influence virulence ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 159 (9 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
ABSTRACT Several evolutionary processes influence virulence
The evolution of multiple memory systems
- In K. Pawlik & M. Rosenzweig (Eds.), International handbook of psychology
, 1987
"... The existence of multiple memory systems has been proposed in a number of areas, including cogni-tive psychology, neuropsychology, and the study of animal learning and memory. We examine whether the existence of such multiple systems seems likely on evolutionary grounds. Multiple sys-tems adapted to ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 118 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The existence of multiple memory systems has been proposed in a number of areas, including cogni-tive psychology, neuropsychology, and the study of animal learning and memory. We examine whether the existence of such multiple systems seems likely on evolutionary grounds. Multiple sys-tems adapted to serve seemingly similar functions, which differ in important ways, are a common evolutionary outcome. The evolution of multiple memory systems requires memory systems to be specialized to such a degree that the functional problems each system handles cannot be handled by another system. We define this condition as functional incompatibility and show that it occurs for a number of the distinctions that have been proposed between memory systems. The distinction be-tween memory for song and memory for spatial locations in birds, and between incremental habit formation and memory for unique episodes in humans and other primates provide examples. Not all memory systems are highly specialized in function, however, and the conditions under which memory systems could evolve to serve a wide range of functions are also discussed. Memory is a function that permits animals and people to ac-quire, retain, and retrieve many different kinds of information. It allows them to take advantage of previous experience to help
Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection
, 2007
"... From an evolutionary perspective, social behaviours are those which have fitness consequences for both the individual that performs the behaviour, and another individual. Over the last 43 years, a huge theoretical and empirical literature has developed on this topic. However, progress is often hin ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 107 (15 self)
- Add to MetaCart
From an evolutionary perspective, social behaviours are those which have fitness consequences for both the individual that performs the behaviour, and another individual. Over the last 43 years, a huge theoretical and empirical literature has developed on this topic. However, progress is often hindered by poor communication between scientists, with different people using the same term to mean different things, or different terms to mean the same thing. This can obscure what is biologically important, and what is not. The potential for such semantic confusion is greatest with interdisciplinary research. Our aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation. In particular, we: (i) discuss confusion over the terms kin selection, mutualism, mutual benefit, cooperation, altruism, reciprocal altruism, weak altruism, altruistic punishment, strong reciprocity, group selection and direct fitness; (ii) emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours. We draw examples from all areas, but especially recent work on humans and microbes.
Language as Shaped by the Brain
"... It is widely assumed that human learning and the structure of human languages are intimately related. This relationship is frequently suggested to be rooted in a language-specific biological endowment, which encodes universal, but arbitrary, principles of language structure (a universal grammar or U ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 105 (24 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
It is widely assumed that human learning and the structure of human languages are intimately related. This relationship is frequently suggested to be rooted in a language-specific biological endowment, which encodes universal, but arbitrary, principles of language structure (a universal grammar or UG). How might such a UG have evolved? We argue that UG could not have arisen either by biological adaptation or non-adaptationist genetic processes. The resulting puzzle concerning the origin of UG we call the logical problem of language evolution. Because the processes of language change are much more rapid than processes of genetic change, language constitutes a “moving target ” both over time and across different human populations, and hence cannot provide a stable environment to which UG genes could have adapted. We conclude that a biologically determined UG is not evolutionarily viable. Instead, the original motivation for UG—the mesh between learners and languages—arises because language has been shaped to fit the human brain, rather than vice versa. Following Darwin, we view language itself as a complex and interdependent “organism, ” which evolves under selectional pressures from human learning and processing mechanisms. That is, languages are themselves undergoing severe selectional pressure from each generation of language users and learners. This suggests that apparently arbitrary aspects of linguistic structure may result from general learning and processing biases, independent of language. We illustrate how this framework can integrate evidence from different literatures and methodologies to explain core linguistic phenomena, including binding constraints, word order universals, and diachronic language change. 1.
How to Make a Kin Selection Model
- J. Theor. Biol
, 1996
"... Kin selection arguments, based on Hamilton's (1964) concept of inclusive fitness, provide... of recipient, or other life history components of fitness, the fitness effects on each component are weighted by reproductive value. We illustrate this technique first in a homogeneous population, with ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 98 (9 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Kin selection arguments, based on Hamilton's (1964) concept of inclusive fitness, provide... of recipient, or other life history components of fitness, the fitness effects on each component are weighted by reproductive value. We illustrate this technique first in a homogeneous population, with examples of group competition and partial dispersal behaviour, and then in a class-structured population, with examples of sex allocation and altruism between age classes.
Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms
- Psychological Review
, 2003
"... A new theory integrating evolutionary and dynamical approaches is proposed. Following evolutionary models, psychological mechanisms are conceived as conditional decision rules designed to address fundamental problems confronted by human ancestors, with qualitatively different decision rules serving ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 94 (24 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A new theory integrating evolutionary and dynamical approaches is proposed. Following evolutionary models, psychological mechanisms are conceived as conditional decision rules designed to address fundamental problems confronted by human ancestors, with qualitatively different decision rules serving different problem domains and individual differences in decision rules as a function of adaptive and random variation. Following dynamical models, decision mechanisms within individuals are assumed to unfold in dynamic interplay with decision mechanisms of others in social networks. Decision mecha-nisms in different domains have different dynamic outcomes and lead to different sociospatial geome-tries. Three series of simulations examining trade-offs in cooperation and mating decisions illustrate how individual decision mechanisms and group dynamics mutually constrain one another, and offer insights about gene–culture interactions. Evolutionary psychology and dynamical systems theory have both been proposed as antidotes to the theoretical fragmentation that long characterized the field of psychology. Evolutionary psy-chologists have proposed that isolated psychological research top-ics such as aggression, taste aversion, language acquisition, mate selection, and spatial cognition can be connected to research on cultural anthropology, ecology, zoology, genetics, and physiology via principles of modern Darwinian theory (e.g., Buss, 1995; Kenrick, 1994; Lumsden & Wilson, 1981; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Dynamical systems theorists have searched for even more fundamental principles: general rules capable of linking informa-tion processing in the human brain with processes found in eco-nomic markets, biological ecosystems, and worldwide weather
Models of cooperation based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Snowdrift game
, 2005
"... Understanding the mechanisms that can lead to the evolution of cooperation through natural selection is a core problem in biology. Among the various attempts at constructing a theory of cooperation, game theory has played a central role. Here, we review models of cooperation that are based on two si ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 86 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Understanding the mechanisms that can lead to the evolution of cooperation through natural selection is a core problem in biology. Among the various attempts at constructing a theory of cooperation, game theory has played a central role. Here, we review models of cooperation that are based on two simple games: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the Snowdrift game. Both games are two-person games with two strategies, to cooperate and to defect, and both games are social dilemmas. In social dilemmas, cooperation is prone to exploitation by defectors, and the average payoff in populations at evolutionary equilibrium is lower than it would be in populations consisting of only cooperators. The difference between the games is that cooperation is not maintained in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, but persists in the Snowdrift game at an intermediate frequency. As a consequence, insights gained from studying extensions of the two games differ substantially. We review the most salient results obtained from extensions such as iteration, spatial structure, continuously variable cooperative investments, and multi-person interactions. Bridging the gap between theoretical and empirical research is one of the main challenges for future studies of cooperation, and we conclude by pointing out a number of promising natural systems in which the theory can be tested experimentally.
