Roger Dereszynski
Melissa Fields
Patty Olachia
Pinker Ch. 7
Chapter 7 of Pinker’s How the Mind Works deals with the psychology of social retaliations. Relations are influenced through our inborn motives, which are largely based on conflicts. Our brains, which produce our inborn motives, were developed through natural selection. Natural selection is based on competition or conflict among genes, and because of this, many of our inborn motives reflect this competitive process. “Eighty percent of our relationships are seen as adversarious, or tragedies of kinship and or love.” (427). Even though many of our inborn motives are influenced by competition, it doesn’t mean that we must always discharge our aggressive desires. After all, we do have elements of cooperation and generosity. The bottom line of being a social organism with motives is to evaluate and assess the opportunities and risks at hand, and to compete or cooperate accordingly.
Kith And Kin
According to Pinker, kinship is based on the principle of treating certain people as kindly as you treat your blood relatives. Inclusive fitness states that there we are altruistic to people who share our genetic make-up. We are naturally supposed to love our kin because of our shared genes. Loving non-kin does not come so naturally. Genetically speaking, loving our non-kin is not as beneficial as loving our kin. Pinker states that these mental programs or inborn motives for family love, “were calibrated in the course of evolution so that love correlated with the probability in the ancestral environment that a loving act would benefit copies of genes for loving acts.
Families are the basic sub-units of our kin, and are important in all societies. Families start when a non-kin male and a non-kin female that share similar genetic interests, procreate and produce a child. Just as parents have a desire to procreate, they also have a desire to act altruistically to their offspring. Acts of kinship to their offspring are imperative to it surviving and eventually passing on its genes. This process is one of the basic operations of evolution. The endless patience and generosity of a child’s parent is very special and irreplaceable.
In today's society, many families consist of stepparents and stepchildren. Although genes are not shared between the stepparents and children, some families are still successful in producing kinship and altruistic behaviors in for the benefit of the family. Even though some families find success in step relationships, not all of them work out. Stepparents are one of the strongest risk factors for child abuse ever. Since a stepparent and stepchild have no shared genetic make-up, their relationship is like any other potential human relationship: antagonistic and indifferent. Like mentioned before, kinship is something that doesn’t come natural to non-kin. It takes a very conscious effort to produce a successful and altruistic stepfamily atmosphere.
Families are also a unique structure because of fictive kin. Fictive kin are genetically unrelated people who are considered part of a family or clan. A spouse is the most common form of a fictive kin. Loyalties are similar to those of inclusive fitness even though a person may not be blood related. Parents play a very influential role in the fictive kin their offspring may choose to marry. Parents and families in general have created coalitions together because they want grandchildren. When a parent's offspring produces children, these grandchildren are seen as genetic fortunes. Grandchildren are another successful generation of one's genes, so a grandparent feels successful when their children have children.
Through out time dowries and bride prices have been present in human cultures in order to produce more incentive for kin and non-kin to unite. These gifts produce a bond between two families, which is symbolic to the desire they each have for their children to procreate and be successful at having a family. Ties are produced to show that love is a valuable thing, and should not be taken lighthearted. Young people can see Romantic love as frivolous. Parents stress romantic love's seriousness through their gift giving. The seriousness is present because of the desire to have their genes survive another generation.
Parents and Children
Pinker states that for an "organism that is designed by natural selection, leaving descendents is the reason for being and the goal of all the toil and struggle" (440). The toil and hard work pays off when a descendent is produced that can eventually pass on its genes too. Parental investment is a valuable allocation of time and energy that is required for the success of their offspring. Children on the other hand are the reciprocators of the parental investors, in that they are the takers of the relationship. Children want more than their parents are willing to offer, and thus being a parent comes with its "toils and struggles." It is for this reasoning that parents are seen as one of the most generous and giving kinds of people in existence. They sacrifice a lot for the benefit of their children.
Children take from their parents in physical and emotional ways. They want food and substinance, but also nurturing and attention. A parent ultimately has control over the amount of investment they want to give, but they have a mental mechanism that tells them they want to sacrifice for their children. A parent may choose to invest in a child that is more promising to be successful, but total success is the goal to being organisms designed by natural selection.
Parental investment can reflect a child's socialization as well. Children are shaped by their parents as well as through the social relationships they make. Children are not able to socialize themselves, so it is a choice of the parents to how much and to whom their child is to be socialized with. Essentially, a selfish parent would want a child to stay tied to the family as close as possible because it could return the parental investment to the kin and somehow help the family in its reproductive success. The child would in theory be altruistic to its family, which would aid in their gene's survival. But pinker claims that although a parent has control over a child's socialization, it is not always beneficial to keep the child as close to the family as possible. Socialization brings many advantages. It lets offspring become rounded in a sense that they can find a more valuable mate, and thus be more successful in producing genetic descendents.
Brothers and Sisters
Pinker begins this section with a discussion on sibling rivalry. He argues that although siblings are genetically 50% related, they are 100% related to themselves. In essence, although they feel love and solidarity to their sibling, they feel more love and solidarity with themselves. That is, it is better for their genes to rival (and attain for themselves) the attention of the parent’s time, energy, and resources.
Pinker then discusses the parental end of sibling rivalry, and who the parent picks, in the event that resources are scarce, to die. He states that the older children have more of a chance to be picked for survival for two reasons. The first being that the parents have put the most time and energy into the older children and second, that the older children are that much closer to reproducing themselves, giving the parents grandchildren, and fulfilling their goal of perpetuating their genes.
After the digression from sibling rivalry to parental choices, Pinker returns to his ideas about brother-sister sibling rivalry. He argues that this relationship has an added element of sexuality merely because brothers and sisters are of the opposite sex. Due to the fact that brothers and sisters are in fact men and women, Pinker states that there should be sexual attraction between brother and sisters because men and women are attracted to one another. However, anyone with an opposite sex sibling can attest to the fact that there is no sexual attraction felt for that sibling. Pinker explores this concept through the examining three possible incestuous relationships; the brother-sister relationship, the father-daughter relationship, and the mother-son relationship. In two former relationships, the advantage lies with the males. Both men are in fact increasing the potential for offspring by the incestuous relationship, and the father (since he up until recently could not guarantee paternity) had an even greater chance of procreating with a non-genetic relative. In the mother-son relationship, neither have any advantages because paternity is a non-issue, no resources are exchanged, and men are not usually attracted to women their mother’s age in the first place. Naturally, the disadvantages are abnormalities in the children, and in the case of the women the wasted time spent investing in a potentially deformed child. How then do people know who their siblings are and who aren’t their siblings?
Pinker answers this by saying that it has been hypothesized that since it is impossible to look at a person’s genes, the next best way for one to tell who s/he is related to is to look at how much time was spent together during early childhood. In support of this, Pinker states that people who grow up together but are not genetically related tend to be sexually indifferent to one another and people who are related but do not spend their childhood’s together, can be attracted to one another.
Ex: Chinese arranged marriages where the bride moves in at an early age
Incest in those reared apart
Men and Women
Premises in Introduction:
Men and women need each other’s DNA to reproduce
This is why “we” have sexual relationships
Men and women have different ideas about the ideal relationship
Evolution caused this through the natural division of labor (who has babies, who gets meat, who gets fruits etc.)
As discussed in class, Pinker too subscribes to the school of thought that believes sexual reproduction (two organisms needed to create another) was “created” to offer the best chances of survival against disease bearing organisms and pathogens. In order to protect the species from pathogens, every generation swaps half of its DNA, making it more difficult for pathogens to become familiar with the existing defenses of the immune system. The two sexes were created in the same fashion as explained in class, the DNA is split up 50/50, and eventually big gametes (greater investing sex) and small gametes (lesser investing sex) are the norm, creating two sexes. Women have the big one that is more rare, men have the small one that are a dime a dozen.
How then did the parental investment of each sex contribute to the differences between the sexes, and how they act towards one another? The greater investing sex chooses a partner and the lesser investing sex competes for partners (simple supply and demand). In human’s case, women choose and men compete to be chosen. Therefore, the initial difference between the sexes is that women are the higher investing parent, at least nine months, where as men can leave after copulation. When, then, is male parental investment increased? The answer is when “benefits exceed costs, when the offspring would be vulnerable without him, when he can easily provision them with concentrated food like meat, and when the young are easy to defend.” This changes what the women will look for in a mate. She is no longer just choosing gametes, she is looking for a mate that has the ability and willingness to invest in their offspring. This process continues, and eventually men are looking for women to copulate with, that offer fidelity, and women are looking for men willing to invest. Now, women are compelled to men that offer investment. This pickiness by the females increases the competition among males. Because males are driven to reproduce with as many females as possible, men end up competing for the limited number of females.
Husbands and Wives
“In evolutionary terms, a man who has a short-term liaison is betting that his illegitimate child will survive without his help or is counting on a cuckolded husband to bring it up as his own. For the man who can afford it, a surer way to maximize progeny is to seek several wives and invest in all their children. Men should want many wives, not just many sex partners.”
The passage above opens the section on husbands and wives, on the already established principle that men should have sex with as many women as possible to increase his genes chances, and that investing in those children offers their best chances of survival. By this rationale, he is stating that it would be in a man’s best interest to have many wives, and out of this he states, arrives polygony. The typical arrangement is that the man takes on another (younger) wife when the first wife becomes older. In essence polygony is not a way for men to oppress women, but a way to for a man to increase his offspring. (Polyandry is not common but does occur when the conditions demand it, i.e.: when men cannot survive without a woman)
Marriage arrangements are usually described from the man’s point of view, because powerful me, as Pinker described, usual have gotten their way. Men are bigger and stronger, have been selected to fight, and because typically sons stay with their families, while daughters move away, creating stronger clans. (“The most florid polygamists are always despots, men who could kill without fear of retribution”, i.e.: Moulay Ismail The Bloodthirsty) The hyperpolygynist must not only fend off the hundreds of men who he has deprived of wives, but must also oppress his harems. Though, contrary to most beliefs, women may often prefer to share a wealthy husband than to have the sole attention of a pauper, even though they prefer it on an emotional level.
“Legal monogamy historically has been as agreement between more and less powerful men, not between men and women. Its aim is not so much to exploit the customers in the romance industry (women) as to minimize the costs of competition among the producers (men).” Marriage, and more specifically monogamous marriage, limits the number of wives that a man can have in order for other men to have a chance, without worrying about fighting for her.
However, both sexes seek liaisons. What would be beneficial about a liaison? For a woman, it means resources. In short term relationships women look for resources, strength, and looks. The woman is typically looking for someone that is in some way superior to her husband. Men on the other hand simply look for variety, more specifically good-looking variety.
What then do people seek in mates? In husbands, women seek wealth, status, ambition, industriousness, stability, sincerity, and a man that will provide bodyguard duties. A man on the other hand looks for faithfulness, signs of fertility (healthy looking and past puberty), and the number of offspring she could provide. These sought after qualities show the part that evolution has played in mate selection.
What is sought after in a mate stems from, or dictates, what is sexy:
“Symmetry, an absence of deformities, cleanliness, unblemished skin, clear eyes, and intact teeth are attractive in all cultures. Orthodontists have found that a good-looking face has teeth and jaws in the optimal alignment for chewing. Luxuriant hair is always pleasing, possibly because it shows not only current health but also a record of health in the years before. Malnutrition and disease weaken the hair as it grows from the scalp, leaving a fragile spot in the shaft. Long hair implies a long history of good health.”
“The average measurement of a trait in a local population is a good estimate of the optimal design favored by natural selection.”
“Beauty in a woman comes from a short, delicate, smoothly curved jawbone, a small chin, a small nose and upper jaw, and a smooth forehead without brow ridges. The “high cheekbones” of a beautiful woman are not bones at all but soft tissue, and contribute to beauty because the other parts of a beautiful face (the jaws, forehead, and nose) are small by comparison.”
Signs of youth and signs of never having been pregnant should make a woman prettier… Therefore a small-jawed, light-boned face is a clue to four reproductive virtues: being female, having the right hormones, being young, not having been pregnant.”
“Among women, a low waist-to-hip ratio has been found to correlate with youth, health, fertility, not being pregnant, and never having been pregnant.”
Women are jealous of siphoned resources, men are jealous of sex.
Friends And Acquaintances
Pinker begins by discussing the act of bestowing a favor for a personal acquaintance. He argues that the best kind of favor is one that is immediately reciprocated. You must be careful when faced with a cheater who may receive a favor but not necessarily return the favor or delay the favor. He brings up the hypothetical issue of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Partners in crime are held in separate cells, and the prosecutor offers each one
A deal. If you rat on your partner and he stays mum, you go free and he gets ten
years. If you both stay mum, you both get six months. If you both rat, you both get five years. The partners cannot communicate, and neither knows what the other will do. Each one thinks: If my partner rats and I stay mum, I’ll do ten years; if he rats and I rat, too, I’ll do five years. If he stays mum and I stay mum, I’ll do six months; if he stays mum and I rat, I’ll go free. Regardless of what he does, then, I’m better off betraying him. Each is compelled to turn in his partner, and they both serve five years-far worse than if each had trust the other (503).
Because the Prisoner’s Dilemma is hypothetical and may never actually be experienced he continues to explain that “Real people face each other in dilemmas of cooperation again and again, and can remember past treacheries or good turns and play accordingly. They can feel sympathetic and extend good will, feel aggrieved and seek revenge, feel grateful and return a favor, or feel remorseful and make amends (503).
Pinker later describes the Tit for Tat strategy, which seems to be most popular in today’s society. This strategy is simple; you cooperate on the first move and then do what your partner did on the move before. Our society as a whole seems to be based upon this strategy. This explains the need for receipts, time clocks, cash register tape, and airplane tickets. The honor system is definitely not in play.
Marx and Engels, hoped that primitive cultures would share for sharing’s sake. However, this is not the case. “The data from anthropology show that the sharing is driven by cost-benefit analyses and a careful mental ledger for reciprocation. People share when it would be suicidal not to (504). This is most common when there is an abundance of food. He gives an example of the !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert. Here, sharing is the rule and unconditional. However, they “do not act out of hearts filled with loving kindness. They enforce the sharing ethic with obsessively detailed memories of who has helped, a clear expectation of payback, and snide gossip about those who don’t pitch in (506).”
Friendship is completely different than acquaintances in that reciprocity is not always required or immediate. According to Pinker, the Tit for Tat rule would strain a friendship rather than enhance it. Friendship and marriage are ruled by companionate love and therefore has a psychology of its own. You consider yourself to be in debt to your friend or mate yet you do not consciously log each favor but still feel good about it. Your acts are altruistic in that you do not expect to be paid nor do you regret the favor should you not be repaid. You give your friend/spouse their own line of credit. However, should your friend/spouse max out their credit line without making a single payment you may end up ending the relationship. But that generally takes a long time.
Our ancestors used this rule of altruism as well whether friend or spouse, you consider the costs and risks of a big favor. The cheater factor is definitely considered. Pinker offers three methods to insure payment. First, proved expertise/knowledge or a service that no one else can duplicate or provide. That way, no one can replace you because you are too valuable. Second, “associate with people who benefit from the things that benefit you (508).” For example, marriage, parents are concerned and value their offspring. Third, “possess skills that benefit others at the same time that they benefit you, like being good at finding your way home (508).” Through each of these techniques you benefit yourself and others, therefore, repayment is not vital. Eventually you become valuable to each other and become friends.
Like acquaintances, friends are subject to cheaters. These cheaters are called fair-weather friends. We tend to weed out such friends in order to save ourselves psychologically and emotionally.
Allies and Enemies
In order to discuss friends and acquaintances you must consider enemies and war. Pinker argues that war is ugly no matter when it takes place. He says that in foraging societies, the motivation for war is “to get or keep women (510).” This is not always a conscious motivation. Because male reproductive success is limited by the availability and access to women, men engage in war to kill off other men, therefore, increasing their chance of obtaining a female, furthering their genes. Another aspect that needs to be considered is that the rape and abduction of women is a regular occurrence during war. Pinker provides many examples of this some of which date back to the Bible and the Trojan War while others are as recent as World Wars I and II. What is debatable is what kind of people really go to war over women. Yet, the rape and abduction of women is exhibited in every culture during every war.
War is also used to benefit reproductive success in that by being a soldier or warrior, the man is put upon a pedestal therefore making him more desirable and attractive to females.
War and aggression is primarily experienced among humans and extremely rare in animals. This can be attributed to the weaponry and technological advances. Social psychologist, Henri Tajfel conducted an experiment in which he divided people into groups by “some trivial criterion,” such as who preferred dogs to cats. Tajfel noted that the groups immediately formed an alliance with the other members of the same group while disliking the other group members. Ethnocentrism was immediately activated.
According to Pinker, women should never engage in war. Because it goes against evolution. Unlike males, females never organized themselves into groups to raid villages for husbands. Women have had no need to do so because their “reproductive success is rarely limited by the number of available males, so any risk to her life while pursuing additional mates is a sheer loss in expected fitness (515). Although there is no real moral reason why women should not go to war, Pinker states that war is a game that benefits men, so they should bear the risks. Also, they should only fight when they are certain they will win. If they know, they will be defeated, they should never engage in war.
Humanity
We all know humans are prone to evil. However, evolutionary psychology is working to add scientific research to “connect what we know about human nature with the rest of our knowledge of how the world works, and to explain the largest number of facts with the smallest number of assumptions (517).”
Although conflict and aggression is apart of our human nature, we as humans have taken great efforts to reduce it. Although, we do have an ugly past tainted with wars and injustices, we need to look past that and see how far we have come.
Chapter 7: Family Values
I. Psychology of social relationships
A. Inborn motives that came from natural selection
1. Kinship and love
2. Adversarial repercussions
II. Kith and Kin
A. Kinship- treat certain people as kindly as you treat your blood relatives
1. Kinship easy for blood related relatives, inborn.
2. Difficult for non-kin. Takes work.
B. Kinship as an adaptive quality
1. Aids in the surival or your genes; inclusive fitness, nepotism.
2. We feel a sense of solidarity, sympathy, tolerance, and trust towards relatives.
C. Families are important in all societies
1. Goal is procreation
2. Just as we are inborn to procreate, we are inborn to care for our offspring
3. Stepparents
a. A leading cause of child abuse
b. Still possible for successful family
D. Fictive-Kin
1. Genetically unrelated people who are considered kin; Spouses
a. United by marriage, have a union to partner through offspring
b. Dowries, trading between clans
c. Political, religious undermining of kinship
d. High stakes
III. Parents and Children
A. Children; “reason for being and the goal of all the toil and struggle in natural selection.” (442)
1. Parental investment
2. Parents are the most unselfish beings
B. Parent-offspring conflict
1. Children are the takers, parents are the providers.
2. Children always want more than their parents give
a. Physical taking and
b. Emotional taking
C. Socialization
1. Advantageous for parents to keep children close to family and out of society, so some parental influence
2. Children can make more of a return on the parental investment
3. Peer socialization also influences a child’s kin relationship
Bothers and Sisters
I. Siblings
a. siblings share 50% of their DNA
b. rival for attention of parents; sibling rivalry
II. Parents
a. how do they react to sibling rivalry
b. which child is worth more?
1. the older sibling has more invested in it
III. Sibling Sexuality
a. brothers and sisters are men and women
b. sexual attraction between men and women
1. there should be sexual attraction between siblings
c. it is not advantageous to mate with close relatives
d. how do you know whom you are related to?
1. look at how much time was spent together during youth
a. ex. Chinese arranged marriages where the young bride moves in with family
Incest occurs in siblings reared apart
Men and Women
I. Why is there sex?
a. to protect body from pathogens
b. lockpickers vs. locksmiths
1. lockpickers (pathogens) strive to pick locks, locksmiths(the body) strive to make locks that aren’t pickable
2. swap half of DNA every generation
II. Why are there two sexes?
a. separation of different sized gametes
1. egg and sperm
a. expensive and cheap
III. Investment
a. Women invest more than men
b. Females become more discriminating
c. Men compete for females
d. Marriage reduces competition
Husbands and Wives
I. Polygony vs. Polyandry
II. Hyperpolygyinst
a. fend off other men
b. oppress harems/wives
III. Would a woman benefit from polygony
a. often times did
b. choose wealthy man with wives over poor man with no wives
IV. Cheating
a. Why women would?
1. resources, looks, strength looked for in short term lover
2. superior to husband in some way
b. why men would?
1. variety in looks
V. Mates for life
a. Women want…
1. wealth, status, ambition, industriousness etc.
b. men want…
1. faithfulness, fertility, maximum # of offspring
VI. What is sexy?
a. non-diseased people
1. signs of being clean
b. symmetry
c. average size
d. youth
Friends and Acquaintances
I. Bestowing a favor on an acquaintance
A. Usually when people are unrelated and have no sexual interest
B. A favor is okay as long as both parties benefit
C. Some favors cannot be retracted
1. for example, the sharing of information, saving a life
D. Some favors take a while to return
1. this is sometimes due to the fact that needs change
E. Delayed exchanges can create a problem
1. makes it easier to cheat
2. the Prisoner’s Dilemma
a. there’s no real solution to this problem
3. real life situations
a. we remember past treacheries or goodness therefore reacting accordingly
II. Tit for Tat Strategy
A. Cooperate on the first move and then do what your partner did on the move before
B. Popular in our society
1. explains the need for receipts, tickets, time cards
2. we do not rely on the honor system
III. Primitive Cultures
A. Marx and Engels’ primitive communism
1. preliterate peoples
2. everyone shares freely
B. However, they mostly interacted freely with their kin
1. some do share with non-kin but it requires reciprocation
C. Data from anthropology suggests that sharing is driven by cost-benefit analyses and a careful mental ledger of reciprocation
1. people share when their survival depends upon it
a. example, food shortages
2. proven true in non-human species
a. vampire bats
b. Ache of Paraguay
D. Proven true in primitive cultures
1. !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert where sharing is holy and being stingy is unacceptable
2. they enforce a sharing ethic with detailed memories of who has done what, payback is expected otherwise they run the risk of gossip
IV. Bestowing a favor on a friend
A. Tit for tat strategy does not apply here
1. Tit for tat strategy strains friendships
a. for example, you cook a big dinner for your friends or spouse and then they bring out their wallet and hand you cash.
B. Companionate love bonds friends and marriages
1. debts are unmeasured and you are not required to repay right away
a. each friend or spouse has a long line of credit
2. Tooby and Cosmides’s formed a theory called the Banker’s Paradox
a. the bank is willing to lend you money as long as you can prove that you don’t need it
b. you have to seriously consider doing a huge favor for someone by weighing the benefits and loss
C. Strategies for making sure both parties receive and give benefits with no extra cost; both parties become valuable to each other and become friends.
1. Make yourself irreplaceable so no one else can duplicate you
2. Associate with people that will benefit from the same things that benefit you
a. “Marriage is the clearest example: the husband and wife share an interest in their children’s welfare” (508).
3. Maintain skills that not only benefit yourself but benefit others as well.
a. For example, being able to fix things
D. Friendship cheaters
1. Friendship cheaters are called fair-weather friends
a. they take benefits from a valuable person yet, they don’t repay them.
b. we have evolved an emotional response that weeds them out
V. Allies and Enemies
A. One aspect of human nature is to feel apart of a group, which causes you to dislike the members of other groups (for example, the Greek system)
1. War has always been horrible despite the romanticized ideal often portrayed.
2. Researches have been struggling to come up with a reason as to why wars are instigated among foraging societies
B. One possible explanation is to obtain or keep women- this is not a conscious decision
1. This is because male reproductive success is limited by access to women.
a. this is why women are often victims of war, usually raped or abducted (this is not limited to tribal wars, this is true of any and all wars)
b. the victorious men of the Yanomamo tribe had three times as many wives and children than those who lost
2. Many people have a hard time believing wars are caused by the desire for women
a. One anthropologist believed the wars were sparked because of a protein shortage, however, Yanomamo informants testified that they had plenty of meat and definitely cherished and loved their women.
C. War is rare in the animal kingdom
1. Only humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and social insects divide themselves into groups to kill the strongest male and take over his females
D. Experiments among humans
1. Henri Tajfel conducted many experiments in which he randomly divided people into two groups
2. People immediately disliked the members of the opposing group
3. Muzafer Sherif selected a random group of boys for a summer camp, divided them into groups that competed against each other in physical and recreational activities. It only took a couple of days for them to become violent towards the members of the opposing team.
E. Tooby and Cosmides predicted that men should be more aggressive when there is not a shortage of food as opposed to when they are in need for food.
F. Ethics of war
1. Women are hardly involved with war partly because their reproductive success is hardly ever limited by access to males
2. “War is a game that benefits men (which was true for most of our evolutionary history), so they should bear the risks (515).
3. Men should only fight when they have a substantial chance of victory.
a. “Our mind is equipped to volunteer for a risk of death in a coalition but only if we do not know when death will come (517).
VI. Humanity
A. Everyone is aware that humans can be horrible towards each other so one goal of evolutionary psychology is to “connect what we know about human nature with the rest of our knowledge of how the world works and to explain the largest number of facts with the smallest number of assumptions (517).”
B. Humans have changed over the centuries partly because of the ability to exchange information and ideas.
C. Although war is a human universal, there have been many advances and efforts to reduce it
1. We see this especially in extraordinary people such as the Dalai Lama of Tibet.
Pinker could have made a better argument as for why we some people have poor relationships with their children. In theory, a parent child relation ship is one of the strongest possible, yet he fails to give adequate explanations for when these relationships fail. Not fully explained; men look for variety, if they do, why do men seek the same types of features in women? “I like women with blond hair, brown eyes, short…” Why do men say, she’s not my type? Pinker’s section on the cause of war being to keep or obtain more access to women was weak. He only provided the reader with one example. For such an important assumption, more evidence should have been given.
Our panel believed that Pinker provided adequate answers to the problems he presents. He could have only improved on the areas mentioned that we thought were weak.