Are you really able to state this? Maybe there has been significant study and it’s been determined that at no time in our past were spiders a significant danger, but as a non-expert on a message board (that’s me), it seems like a possibility that can’t just be dismissed.
I’d say it’s a reasonable conclusion. The vast majority of spiders are harmless to humans. While we can’t say for certain there weren’t human-menacing spiders early in our evolution, there’s nothing in the fossil record which would indicate such existed, thus no reason to expect that they were there.
You guys might enjoy these podcasts of an interview with an evolutionary psychologist responding to specific criticisms of the field:
Would the fossil record tell us to what extent they were dangerous to humans/ancestors? Seems like we don’t have good access to that information.
I’m not sure what the research shows about the number of sexual partners men tend to have as compared to the number women tend to have, so I won’t argue about that. But I do want to point out that your post is confusing explanation of one’s actions with an account of one’s motivations. The two are different, and can often be separated. If you trust me and I tell you there’s gold behind door number 2, when it’s actually a monster poised to eat you, then an account of your motivation will involve a drive toward enrichment, while an explanation of your action will involve my having decieved you. My having decieved you does not enter into your motivations, but it is nevertheless part of the explanation for your action in opening door number 2. Similarly, propagating genes almost never enters into any of our motivations for having sex, but the fact that sex propagates genes certainly enters into the explanation as to why we have sex. It’s not part of our motivation, but it* is involved among the causes of our having sex.
As for your final point about how rarely sexual acts are successful in propagating genes, they don’t have to be very successful. They only have to be successful enough. Similarly, frogs might shoot out their tongues at all kinds of little specks in the air. This behavior doesn’t have to be extremely successful at fly-catching–it only has to be successful enough. Even if only one in a hundred specks turns out to actually be a fly, that may be enough to keep the frog well fed. And it’s that fact–that the behavior nets flies often enough–that explains the frog’s behavior.
*To be clear, “it” here means “the fact that having sex propagates genes”.
To my mind at least, it is clear that there is an evolutionary basis for certain basic drives that are shared by almost all humans - the urge to have sex, to fight or flee under stress, etc. Where the trouble starts is when specific evolutionary basis are proposed for specific ways in which these drives are expressed in actual behaviour - the problem being that human behaviour is so seemingly variable, both between individuals in different cultures and between individuals in different generations within the same culture.
Which is rather the point. The EP authors are beginning from the premise that spiders are dangerous (without any actual research demonstrating that fact), and therefore we evolved a spider-specific recognition template (and from there, the associated phobia), whereas many in the medical community are mystified at the commonness of the phobia given that the vast majority of extant spiders are harmless to humans. What, then, is the need to evolve spider-specific recognition if spiders pose no evolutionary threat?
If we did find fossils which preserved the mouthparts and found that these mouthparts were able to penetrate human skin, AND these spiders were sufficiently common in areas where humans evolved, THEN the authors might have a point. Unless and until that happens, though, this paper is just one more ad hoc explanation for a behavioral phenomenon that appears to me to be at odds with reality.
I don’t find that criticism very convincing. Evolutionary psychologists argue that the environment of evolutionary adaptedness millions of years ago is what is important, not modern society.
Humans evolved to favor sweet and fatty foods (hopefully no disagreement there). In modern America this has led to obesity and other health problems. Pointing out that people that eat too much die sooner in our current society says nothing about the usefulness of the fatty food preference in our ancient ancestors. Similarly, the fact the modern British men find sleeping around and having babies with many different women distasteful doesn’t mean it wasn’t a useful strategy in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.
I agree that people should make sure there’s actually something to explain before going about trying to explain it. There may not be anything to explain if the relevant variations in human behavior are of the wrong kind and size.
But I don’t think variation in behavior itself undermines evolutionary psychology, any more than variation in physical characteristics undermines evolutionary biology.
From your link:
This is the very problem we were discussing. There is no proof that spiders were ever a truly significant problem to anyone; they certainly are not one now, and it is an unconvincing hypothetical that they were a serious menace during the Pleistocene (and as noted above modern folks who live as hunter-gatherers are in point of fact more likely to eat spiders than be afraid of them).
The prevelance of spider-phobia remains to my mind inexplicable.
Sure, if that variation was similar to that observed for physical characteristics - which obviously do pass to an extent through descent.
If two folks from sub-saharan Africa have a baby, it will most likely be Black. Take that baby, raise it in New York, and it will act like a New Yorker. Thus, the variations observed between the behaviours of New Yorkers and sub-saharan Africans are not linked to descent. Any theory of evolutionary psychology that attempts to explain the fine details of why New Yorkers behave as they do is thus likely wrong; only on the level that explains the common behaviours between New Yorkers and sub-saharan Africans can it be correct. And that means generalities and drives only. Thus, evolutionary psychology isn’t very useful.
I don’t believe that humans evolved to favor sweet and fatty foods. If we had, then we’d eat more sweet and fatty foods. The surge in obesity in the United States has occurred because many people choose to eat unhealthy foods in the United States. In other countries, the bulk (yuk yuk) of the populace has chosen differently, and obesity rates are tiny compared to those of America. As I’ve posted in a recent thread on the same topic, I firmly believe that people choose what foods they’re going to like and dislike. My mother has chosen to avoid all foods with artificial sugar and high fat content, and after doing so for a while she’s reached the state where she no longer likes those foods. Once I preferred white bread to wheat. Later I chose to switch to wheat bread because it’s healthier. Now I prefer wheat bread. Simple as that.
But the real question is, “do men experience an innate motivation towards polygyny?” The answer, for the vast majority of men, is obviously “no”, assuming that the poll taken is accurate. If most men did experience an urge to sleep with as many partners as possible, then we could debate the reasons for it. But since they do not, any theory purporting to explain why they do must be wrong.
Besides which, a quick survey of human sexual tastes clearly shows that a great deal of them are not related to reproduction. There’s no reproductive advantage to having anal sex or oral sex, or to mutual masturbation, fondling, or cuddling, or to have a fetish for women’s toes or an obsession with leather boots, or to getting turned on by the odor of bananas or the feel of silk sheets. Animals, when having sex, just have sex. But with humans, it’s different.
I acknowledge the point, but consider. By the numbers that I posted, a man would have to sleep with fifty women in order to have one child (on average). That’s quite a challenge. Warren Beatty might be able to pull it off, but most guys would not. Hence it would be a bad strategy for reproduction.
In the main I agree with you - EP as it has developed (wild, poorly tested, and often incoherent speculations about genetic causes for highly specific modern human behaviors) is garbage.
But this bit I quoted of yours here, it’s also garbage, for the obvious reason that it applies equally well to sex with a monogomous partner. If sex with a lover can’t possibly be reproductively effective, then sex with a spouse isn’t going to be any better, because there’s nothing about being married that makes pregnancy more effective. All that matters is how many attempts you make and luck, and that’s equally effective with every partner.
Seriously, you are doing exactly the same thing you (rightly) criticize EP for - selecting your conclusion and cobbling together a semi-but-not-really-plausible argument for it. That’s not a good thing.
If only we had a comedy forum, this would be the perfect post for it.
I’m not weighing in on the main debate here (except to say that as far as I’ve observed, the broad general patterns of human behavior are clearly evolution-driven but specific details seem to be largely learned). But on the subject of kids and their spider fears, I think I have a right to an opinion because I give many spider programs to first-grade classes. Only a few kids in these classes are really afraid, and the vast majority are very willing to hold a live spider once they’ve seen their peers do so. Very often, in these classes there’s one kid who thinks it’s funny to yell and scream when he touches a spider and tries to startle the other kids into doing the same. Gradually, from this type of antisocial kid, from fearful relatives and teachers, and from Hollywood, the kids pick up spider fears. At each grade level the percentage of fearful ones is higher until by 6th grade only a few kids in the class have completely escaped it. At some point in the process, cultural differences between girl-culture and boy-culture set in and the girls start to get it more than the boys - but the boys get plenty.
Some people lose their fears as adults, but it seems to be predominantly men who do so, probably because adult-male culture encourages bravery more than adult-female culture does. However, among professional arachnologists, the sex ratio is practically 50:50, which shows that women are just as likely as men to go all the way to a
full-time enjoyment of spiders. In fact, this seems to be more the case in arachnology than in very many other scientific fields (which makes our professional meetings more fun!).
The bottom line is, my experience has been that most people’s spider fears are gradually learned during childhood, and are not primarily genetic in origin.
Only a small percentage of the fearful are full-fledged phobics. These latter tend to attribute their fears to some specific incident in their childhood. But I have no idea whether that’s really correct, or maybe they’re just reasoning after the fact based on psychobabble they’ve heard. Check out this article:
Hadley, Tad N. 1988. Entomophobia: The case for Miss Muffet. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 34(2): 64-69.
Some posters have suggested that spider fears may be evolutionarily neutral. Be that as it may, full-fledged phobia is definitely maladaptive. Phobics are unable to function or get on with their lives if they know there’a a spider nearby. And since there nearly always is a spider nearby, they definitely don’t have an easy time of it. I often advise true phobics I come in contact with, to seek treatment and thereby make their lives more livable.
Why are we having such a hard time using the word “instinct” in this thread?
Am I the only person who thinks EP has a huge resemblance to Freudianism? At least, all the behaviors I’ve seen explained always go back to innate (and usually sexual) desires. The only difference being that it is only such desires that are postulated to have evolutionary benefits.
Anyways, if I’m not, then that might be why people don’t like it. Freud’s views were mostly disproven. So something that sounds like it is somewhat based on his views would be considered unlikely to be true.
What would you like us to say about it?
Some of it is based on some really shaky ideas of causality. The psyche is formed by one’s own experiences more than by the experiences of one’s ancient ancestors. Even if we see the mind as a pattern-grown organism rather than self-directed, trying to argue for vestigial adaptations may overlook all the spontaneous evolution that has taken place since.