This book, more than any, opened my eyes to the field of evolutionary psychology! 

    Mr. Wright explains the life and times of Charles Darwin – through a Darwinian perspective. We learn about a very important historical figure, and at the same time evolutionary psychology-Ingenious!

Here are a few quotes I found to be interesting;

“First: one good reason to suspect an evolutionary explanation for something- some mental trait or mechanism of mental development – is that it’s universal, found everywhere, even in cultures that are as far apart as two cultures can be.” p. 45

     This is an important aspect to keep in mind with evolutionary psychology.  If people act the same way no matter the culture or geography, then we should look for another variable such as biological differences and evolution to explain human behavior.

“The natives, it seemed, hadn’t even gotten the connection between sex and reproduction.  When one seafaring Trobriander returned from a voyage of several years to find his wife with two children, Malinowski was tactful enough not to suggest that she had been unfaithful.  And ‘when I discussed the matter with others, suggesting that one at least of these children could not be his, my interlocutors did not understand what I meant.’” P. 44

     The above quote is about the anthropologist Dr. Malinowski studying the Trobriander people of the South Pacific.  I just found it funny that they didn’t know sex is a precursor to children!  

“The great apes’ nearness to us on the evolutionary tree legitimizes a kind of detective game.  It’s possible- though hardly certain – that when a trait is shared by all of them and by us, the reason is common descent.” p. 49

“The life of the male chimpanzee is also combative.  He strives to climb a male hierarchy that is long and fluid compared to a gorilla hierarchy.  And, again, the dominant male – working tirelessly to protect his rank through assault, intimidation, and cunning – gets first dibs on any females, a prerogative he enforces with special vigor when they’re ovulating.” p. 50

    If we study how human’s closest non-species relatives behave, we can better understand the way we act. 

“In Buddhist scripture there is the arch-tempter Mara, who insidiously deploys his daughters, Rati (Desire) and Raga (Pleasure).” P. 367

    It’s just funny that my sister’s name is Mara! 

“No doctrine heightens one’s consciousness of hidden selfishness more acutely than the new Darwinian paradigm. If you understand the doctrine, buy the doctrine, and apply the doctrine, you will spend your life in deep suspicion of your motives.” p. 376

     Even though this book isn’t billed as a self-help guide, it works as one.  Quotes like this made me aware that I tend to see things my way- whether I’m aware of it or not. 

      Easily understandable, interesting, and well planned out are adjectives that come to mind about this book. The author, David Buss, poses many questions, and offers some attention-grabbing hypothesizes.

“Evolutionary social psychology offers the promise of answering some of the most profound questions about the human animal.  Why do people live in groups?  Why do people form relationships – mateships, friendships, coalitions, and kin ties- that endures over years and decades?  Why do we select mates and friends preferentially, and what selection criteria do we use?  Why do people cooperate with some, yet compete with others?  Why dare social relationships sometimes riddled with conflict and strife, but other times characterized by love and cooperation?  Is love, as The Beatles suggested, all we need?  Because most human social interaction has taken place within the context of enduring relationships, questions about the psychology of relationships should form the core of the field of social psychology.” (p. 384)

    Humans take much of the above for granted.  Of course we do that stuff!-that seems to be the common feeling among us humans. Yet for evolutionary psychologists (and others), they ask why in the heck we do it.  Because in all honestly, the activities we do are quite abnormal. For example, why is it tall man are found to get paid more?  For example;

“Tall men earn higher salaries, averaging roughly six hundred dollars more per year for each inch above the mean of 5 feet, 8 inches.  In presidential elections in the twentieth century, the taller of the two candidates won 83 percent of the time.  Although humans may have the most complex and elaborate prestige hierarchies, sheer size remains an important factor.” (p. 362)

Or for another example…

“The link between physical and social stature has been explored experimentally. (Wilson, 1968).  In one study the same man was introduced to different audiences, but was identified to each audience as having a different rank – professor, graduate student, and so on.  The audiences were subsequently asked to estimate the height of the man.  Audiences to whom the man was described as being high in status recalled him as being taller than audiences to whom the man was described as being lower status.” (361-362)

We’re not exactly sure why tall men are treated better, but there are ideas. Another example of humans preferring different bodily features more than others is facial dominance;

“In another study the facial dominances of fifty-eight high school boys were rated along with physical attractiveness and pubertal development (Mazur, Halpern & Udry, 1994).  Subsequently, these boys completed questionnaires that requested information about their sexual experiences.  All three predictors-facial dominance, physical attractiveness, and pubertal development- were positively correlated with having experienced sexual intercourse and with the total number of sex partners.  After statistically controlling for attractiveness and pubertal development, however, facial dominance still significantly predicted sexual experience.  The authors concluded that a dominant facial appearance leads to increased sexual access among males.” (p. 364)

    It all seems peculiar doesn’t it?  Are tallness and facial dominance factors of more truthful, law-abiding or moralistic people?  Not that I know of!  But then why the hypocrisy?  Evolutionary psychologists take the approach that this behavior might be linked to our genes which were influenced by our ancestral environment.  

     For a more imperative example of human behavior we can look at violence among humans.  Specifically, why are men much more violent than women? In the words of Robert Wright: “From an evolutionary point of view, the leading cause of violence is maleness.” That tongue and cheek statement contains a very serious message.  The problem of male violence is quite pronounced as this following example points out:

“More than 18,000 homicides are committed in the United States, each year, according to the FBI crime statistics (Kenrick & Sheets, 1993).  Of these, more than 80 percent are committed by men (Daly & Wilson, 1988).  Mainstream social scientists often explain the sex differences in homicide rates in the United States by invoking “culture-specific gender norms” (e.g., Goldstein, 1986).  This theory encounters an empirical problem: The sex difference is found in every culture across the globe from which homicide statistics are available (Daly & Wilson, 1988).  (Page 306)

There is a myriad examples revealing men’s penchant for violence.  Dr. Kenrick at ASU has shown men think about killing much more than women do.

“First, more men (79 percent) than women (58 percent) reported experiencing at least one homicidal fantasy. (See figure 10.4). Second, 38 percent of the men, but only 18 percent of the women, reported having had several homicidal fantasies.  Third, men’s fantasies tended to last longer than women’s fantasies.”