There Is A Gad
I Tweeted this last night -- "The Never-Ending Misconceptions About Evolutionary Psychology," or why Newsweek's Sharon Begley is an ass. http://ow.ly/15FUR6 -- but I was too tired to post it then. My HBES pal Gad Saad does a masterful job in a blog item over at Psych Today (a magazine rejuvenated by my friend Kaja Perina) taking apart the crappy article Begley wrote in Newsweek. An excerpt from Gad's piece:
(1) Ms. Begley's article title, Can We Blame Our Bad Behavior on Stone-Age Genes, seems to levy yet again the specter that evolutionary psychology is tantamount to genetic determinism. Evolutionary psychologists posit that the human mind does indeed consist of evolved computational systems that can be instantiated in one of several ways as a function of specific triggering inputs. Put simply, evolutionary psychologists are perfectly aware that humans are an inextricable mélange of their genes and idiosyncratic life experiences. This is known as the interactionist perspective. Epigenetic rules by definition recognize the importance of the environment in shaping the manner by which biological blueprints will be instantiated. Hence, EP does not imply that we are endowed with a perfectly rigid and inflexible human nature. Rather, we do possess an evolutionary-based human nature that subsequently interacts with environmental cues. That said this does not imply that human nature is infinitely malleable. I challenge Ms. Begley to find a culture in the annals of recorded history where parents were overwhelmingly more concerned about their son's chastity as compared to their daughter's. I challenge Ms. Begley to find a culture where on average men have had a sustained preference for mating with post-menopausal women. I challenge Ms. Begley to find a culture where individuals who possess asymmetric facial features are judged to be more attractive and desirable than their symmetric counterparts. I challenge Ms. Begley to find a culture where on average women have had a sustained preference for lazy, submissive, apathetic men as prospective mates. As a side note, contrary to Ms. Begley's claim, as a woman's socioeconomic status increases, her preference for a high status man becomes even more pronounced.
And yes, from the beginning of Begley's shoddy piece, Thornhill and Palmer (who I know as well, and have great respect for), believe that rape was an evolutionary adaptation. This doesn't mean they think it's good or that it should happen. But, it does, and they do a hell of a job explaining why in their excellent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion.
I recommend Gad Saad's book as well: The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption (Marketing and Consumer Psychology Series).
If you're looking for a good intro to evolutionary psychology that's also a really interesting read, I recommend David Buss' book, which is also a bit more budget-priced: The Evolution Of Desire - Revised Edition 4.
"I challenge Ms. Begley to find a culture where on average women have had a sustained preference for lazy, submissive, apathetic men as prospective mates."
Well, I'm sure glad one did.
old rpm daddy at June 23, 2009 7:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/06/23/begley.html#comment-1655331">comment from old rpm daddyFunny.
Amy Alkon at June 23, 2009 7:29 AM
Other than the submissive part, those aren't traits desired by either gender.
And, when all of us reach mating age, we are young, so it seems logical that we would choose to mate with our peers - other young people - not middle-age people. I don't find the fact that verile young men don't predominately choose to mate with post-menopausal women very convincing evidence that we're controlled by evolution. It's just kind of logical, as well as parent's caring more about their daughter's chastity. I care more about it because of self-interest. I'm more likely to end up raising any child my daughter has, rather than one my son might produce.
lovelysoul at June 23, 2009 8:50 AM
I challenge Mr. Saad to find a single species in the history of life on earth in which alpha males can't find as many willing females to mate with as they can handle. In fact, bulls of some species have been known to die of exhaustion from the demands of satisfying all the eager cows in their harems while fighting off swarms of lesser males who want a bit of tail. And in our own species, fertile females are naturally lured to genuine alpha males, even unsavory ones. Can you picture a realistic alternative universe in which Tony Soprano would not have all the willing goombas he desired? When Dr Melfi was assaulted, wasn't his first reaction an offer to kill the scumbag for her? Rape has always struck me as an evolutionary MALadaption - a means by which third-rate males use force to gain the access to fertile females that only first-rate males deserve. The most worthless stupid sack of shit in Tony's crew could have overpowered & raped Dr Melfi. How is that good for the species?
Kim Hill's cost/benefit analysis of rape in primitive societies seems perfectly convincing to me. And I remember reading Shirley Strum's fascinating studies of baboon behavior ("The Pumphouse Gang" & other books & papers) decades ago. As I recall, she observed that male baboons who raped females rarely rose very high in the troop hierarchy. They were more often treated as outcasts, and they had a low rate of passing on their genes to offspring who were well cared for and survived to reach high status positions in the troop. It just wasn't a winning strategy. Keep in mind that sexual dimorphism in baboons is vastly greater than in humans. If our species had the same proportionality between the sexes, men would be 9 feet tall, and have huge fangs besides. So physically, there's nothing stopping just about any male baboon from overpowering & raping every female in sight. Yet alpha males don't, by & large, and the males who do don't get very far in baboon society. Can Thornhill & Palmer explain why?
Martin at June 23, 2009 9:12 AM
Why does everyone fantasize about rape? It is a thrilling topic--but only if the rapists are good-loking, and the women too. Why is that?
i-hole at June 23, 2009 9:18 AM
Helluva comment, Martin - you raise some fascinating questions.
Jody Tresidder at June 23, 2009 9:25 AM
Evolutionary psychology seems to produce some stunning perceptions - but some very wobbly theories.
I really don't understand what advantage adheres to the infant resulting from rape?
Jody Tresidder at June 23, 2009 9:55 AM
Exactly, Jody! Baboon infants resulting from rape were often abandoned by their mothers and left to die. The ones who survived childhood did not tend to get the love & support from their mothers and female relatives that is essential for a baboon to rise to a high status position in the troop & breed high status offspring of their own. For intelligent, status-conscious social animals like baboons (or humans), that is the true measure of success. There is no reason to believe that similar dynamics would not have played out among our hominid ancestors who shared the baboon's habitat & life-style.
In the animal kingdom, being an alpha male - a male who has earned the right to mate with the females of his choice - is tremendously demanding. Only the healthiest, strongest, smartest males can pull it off for long. And sexual selection ensures that the finest fertile females reward such males with access to their bodies & the willingness to devote their time & energy to nurturing & raising their offspring to healthy adulthood. In this way, both sexes do their part to ensure the continued survival of the fittest members of their species.
By contrast, a raping male only has to be fit enough to overpower the nearest female, and hold an erection just long enough to squirt a sperm cell into her uterus. That's an awfully low bar to clear. Even a wretched, diseased, totally unfit failure of a male could manage it sometimes. In this light, rape is an act of sabotage - a way for unworthy males to undermine nature's way of ensuring that only the fittest propagate the species. I can see why this behavior would persist, but I can't fathom why it would be an evolutionary advantage, or good for the species.
Martin at June 23, 2009 12:20 PM
This is exactly why we need baboon abortion. ;0
"By contrast, a raping male only has to be fit enough to overpower the nearest female, and hold an erection just long enough to squirt a sperm cell into her uterus. That's an awfully low bar to clear."
Then, why do so many guys set it there?(Okay, okay, I'm sounding like Crid today...lol)
The thing is, I've been with "alpha males" - or at least our equivalent - and they no longer have to be the strongest or in the best physical condition...just rich. Isn't that, in itself, quite a change from caveman days? The fact that women can now swoon over some geeky Silicon Valley billionaire rather than the hottest, toughest, muscle-man shows our ability to adapt, doesn't it?
lovelysoul at June 23, 2009 1:23 PM
>>The thing is, I've been with "alpha males" - or at least our equivalent - and they no longer have to be the strongest or in the best physical condition...just rich.
Lovelysoul,
What if you go further back (I mean, personally, not historically!) to when the alpha male types were already visible (at college - even school) and money wasn't the issue?
I kinda think that gets us nearer to transcendent alpha qualities - without the distraction of cash?
I've also idly been trying to play Devil's Advocate to Martin - and I can't!
So far, I can only locate disadvantages to the notion of rape as evolutionary adaptation. There seem to be fatal flaws in the Rape Theory, surely?
Jody Tresidder at June 23, 2009 1:55 PM
"Isn't that, in itself, quite a change from caveman days?"
Bill Gates couldn't kill a mammoth with a spear, but in the business world, he's a savage competitor. Do you have any idea how many other guys were sure they could come up with & market a better operating system than Windows? Where are they now? Bill knocked them out (well, almost all of them). If you read even a brief biography, you'll see that some of those transcendent alpha qualities Jody is talking about were already present when he was a teenager.
Being a successful man who stands out from the crowd is still demanding in today's world. The attentions of desirable females are still Mother Nature's way of rewarding that success. And rape is still a shortcut to the access to desirable females that success naturally commands.
Martin at June 23, 2009 2:54 PM
More succinctly: if all the hottest women started chasing after failures, THAT would be a big change from caveman days. They haven't.
Martin at June 23, 2009 3:54 PM
Yes, but I'm saying there's no real "type". The main thing that attracts a woman is a man who can provide a safe "nest" in which to bring children into the world. Strength used to be the main feature of that, but now, money provides the same protection.
Bill Gates is surely aggressive in business, but he's probably no better at lovemaking than the less desirable baboons you described(my guess).
But it's also plainly logical for women to want a safe, secure nest in which to raise children. I'm not sure that's primarily controlled by evolutionary factors, or just a sign of intelligence. We'd be foolish to chase after men who are failures and thereby unable to provide for the offspring.
Yet, women do chase after losers in certain socioeconomic levels, and we have women, especially in the black community, who choose to build their own nest without a male. If we are so influenced by these past instincts, why would that happen? Does welfare so easily replace those motivations, and, if so, how strong can they really be?
lovelysoul at June 23, 2009 5:01 PM
I think Martin's on to something. We've been fed a line for decades about how rape is about power, but if that were the case wouldn't the alphas be the rapists?
Rape is about sex - specifically about getting sex that your status does not entitle you to.
Which would explain why rapists tend to be fuckups and douchebags.
brian at June 23, 2009 5:19 PM
Think about it, though - what are those losers compared to the rest of the local fauna? Douchebags get their mating success by giving the outward appearance of alpha-ness while often being betas or worse.
And in a way, that could explain why so many lower-class women go it alone. Once they realize that the father is actually a risk to the offspring, it's better to be rid of him.
brian at June 23, 2009 5:22 PM
Even trailer trash girls are still following their primal instincts by looking for whatever signs of success they can find in the males in their social stratum. A muscled Stormfront skinhead with a rusty Camaro is still a better catch than a scrawny wannabee with a rusty bicycle.
Is the welfare state a strong enough force to override these primal instincts? I think it can be, when it takes a man's place as the provider. A functionally illiterate black girl raising a litter of fatherless kids can receive thousands of dollars a month in welfare, subsidized housing, child support, & other benefits. That's more money than any of the losers who fathered her chidren could ever earn in an honest, legal job. If the government cancelled all benefits to women after they had a second fatherless kid, do you think you'd start to see a change in their behavior? Of course, in the real world welfare state, that will never happen.
Martin at June 23, 2009 6:33 PM
"Why does everyone fantasize about rape? It is a thrilling topic--but only if the rapists are good-loking, and the women too. Why is that?"
I don't believe everyone fantasizes about rape scenarios, but i do believe it is more common than people think.
Interesting post, Amy.
Feebie at June 23, 2009 6:52 PM
but I can't fathom why it would be an evolutionary advantage, or good for the species.
How can I put this... This is why I still rate The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype as two of the best, truly outlook changing books I've ever read. Thanks to those books I can easily fathom why it might be an evolutionary advantage. And, pray tell, what do "evolutionary advantage" and "good for the species" have to do with each other?
All you have to do is take a gene's eye view. Imagine you're a gene in a male who has little or no chance of mating. What do you have to lose by getting him to choose rape? Sure, he might be killed and the kid stands a good chance of being neglected or maybe even killed (although mothers tend to be reluctant to lose their sunk investments), but some chance of being replicated is better than no chance.
The male rape strategy reminds a bit of the female blatant promiscuity strategy - not the ideal strategy, but better than nothing (from the gene's perspective).
Shawn at June 23, 2009 10:29 PM
>>And, pray tell, what do "evolutionary advantage" and "good for the species" have to do with each other?
Shawn,
I take those to be synonymous. (Or maybe sequential: an evolutionary advantage positively affects - i.e is "good" for - the reproduction of the species.)
What you say makes sense as a last chance strategy. But isn't the argument here that rape is the template for human reproduction?
(If I'm making my point badly, forgive me, Got a snoot full of flu here!)
Jody Tresidder at June 24, 2009 6:22 AM
> Evolutionary psychologists posit that the
> human mind does indeed consist of evolved
> computational systems that can be
> instantiated in one of several ways as
> a function of specific triggering inputs.
This is why I hate Amy's psychobabble friends.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 24, 2009 8:34 AM
As I said; "I can see why this behavior would persist, but I can't fathom why it would be an evolutionary advantage, or good for the species"
There are 2 separate issues here. The selfish gene scenario you've described so well explains why this behavior persists. It does nothing to show that this behavior is an evolutionary advantage. Take 2 tribes of cavemen:
In tribe A, the fittest, healthiest males get to mate with their choice of the finest fertile females of their choice. Those females are all willing to invest the huge amount of time & effort needed to raise their offspring to healthy adulthood, and they pass on their high status to their children. Some lower status, less fit males occasionally manage to force or sneak their way into the gene pool.
In tribe B, most men carry the rape gene. Any stupid third-rate male strong enough to overpower the nearest female gets to mate. Those females have a strong tendency to neglect or abandon the offspring of rape, instead of willingly giving them the endless hours of love & attention they need to survive & be healthy. And Thornhill & Palmer think that Tribe A went extinct, while Tribe B survived & left us as their descendants? I'm not buying it. It's inevitable that some men will resort to this strategy, and get a chance to pass on their genes. But it's still not a winning strategy, either for baboons or people.
Martin at June 24, 2009 8:45 AM
Gack! Just one "their choice" in the 3rd paragraph.
Martin at June 24, 2009 8:50 AM
How does the high-status female even know the paternity of the child she's carrying? Was there monogamy back then? Or is it possible that alpha males mated with many females of their choice?
I'm just not buying the whole Tribe B scenario of maternal neglect. It seems to me that most sexual experience would've seemed like rape to the females anyway. If Tribe B did indeed survive, perhaps it's because the lower status males managed, on occassion, to rape females because they were smarter - making up for their lack of brawn with greater cunning.
That might explain why so many really smart guys tend to be slight or thin.
lovelysoul at June 24, 2009 9:44 AM
>>That might explain why so many really smart guys tend to be slight or thin.
Isn't that looking through a 21st century prism, lovelysoul?
Jody Tresidder at June 24, 2009 10:07 AM
No, only about a half-dozen gender feminists believe that.
The argument of the source is that rape is a genetic adaptation. She's one of those half-dozen.
I'll admit I didn't read Saad's takedown, but from an evolutionary POV, and from the point that we can see even now, rape is a maladaptation that allows the unfit to attempt to reproduce by force.
In other words, the rapist is not desirable enough to unseat the alpha, or to even win out over the vast plain of betas, but he is strong enough to overpower a female and forcibly impregnate her.
In which case, abortion of rape-induced pregnancies could be considered a reasonable attempt to weed out faulty genes.
brian at June 24, 2009 10:34 AM
Brian,
I think you're right - I goofed.
(I'm not that clear about the precise definition of "maladaptation" in evolution. Anyway, I'm arguing like an idiot today...)
Jody Tresidder at June 24, 2009 10:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/06/23/begley.html#comment-1655604">comment from brianIn which case, abortion of rape-induced pregnancies could be considered a reasonable attempt to weed out faulty genes.
They didn't have abortion doctors in the Pleistocene.
Sorry to be absent from this discussion -- been on deadline until this morning, and now dealing with some stuff for my book.
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2009 10:59 AM
That's not entirely germane.
What's under discussion here is whether rape is a feature or a bug. And the belief by morons that EP is being used to attempt to "justify" or "mainstream" rape as an acceptable mating strategy.
Of course TFA is from the point of view of someone who is stupider on the subject of evolution than I am.
Simply - in a world where voluntary pregnancy termination is not an option, rape is a viable means for sub-beta males to reproduce. If sub-beta males are actually valuable to the species, then this is a feature. If they are not, then it is a bug.
Given that the offspring produced this way may be likely to be maltreated by their mothers (how's that for a set of weasel-words?) I'd argue that it's a bug.
And civilization is the great debugger. Now we have a mechanism to separate rapists from society, hopefully before they can successfully procreate. This only matters if predilection to rape is purely genetic and not environmental.
In other words, yes, in prehistory rape conferred an evolutionary advantage to a subclass of hominids that weren't socially acceptable as mate material.
Actually, I think the term we should be using is "misfeature".
brian at June 24, 2009 1:39 PM
I think, like so many theories, this one just doesn't conform to the simple box everyone wants to place it in.
My ex was obsessed with rape. He fantasized about it since he was a teen, and admitted to me it was because his older brother, a jock, got all the hot girls in high school. But his brother was 4 years older, so the ex was in early puberty during this time, while seeing his older brother have all the "fun". My ex, the younger brother, was physically ready for sex, but those girls he was around weren't (yet) interested in him, so the only way he could imagine he could have them was by force, which began a rape fetish that has lasted 30+ years.
But, as time past, those same women became much more interested in him than the brother. In actuality, my ex was much better-looking and more of an alpha male than his sibling.
So, this is why the theory doesn't quite work. It plants every male in one place at one time, and says that only the high status, most desirable, males ever mated by choice, and the lower status males had to resort to rape. But things change in terms of status, so that can't be true.
If it were, we'd all be beautiful, buff, symmetrical people. Yet, we are a quite plain, unattractive population, in almost every culture. Obviously, the lower status males still managed to mate, and perhaps after they did, they gained higher status, or others developed lower status. Status is not a set thing. The status of any individual is always changing.
lovelysoul at June 24, 2009 5:50 PM
I take those to be synonymous. (Or maybe sequential: an evolutionary advantage positively affects - i.e is "good" for - the reproduction of the species.)
"Evolutionary advantage" and "good for the species" are neither synonymous nor sequential if you are talking about the evolutionary advantage to a gene. And generally you should be, because evolution is about genes replicating (in competition and cooperation with each other). It's perfectly possible and inevitably quite common that a gene will program something that is good for itself, but bad for the species of the organism that contains it.
What you say makes sense as a last chance strategy. But isn't the argument here that rape is the template for human reproduction?
The selfish gene scenario you've described so well explains why this behavior persists. It does nothing to show that this behavior is an evolutionary advantage.
It's an evolutionary advantage to the gene. Again, I think this is Dawkins' point: evolution happens first and foremost at the gene level.
In tribe A,...In tribe B,...
This is perhaps why rape is not more prevalent, although I'm suspicious of speculative explanations involving large groups. The thing is that rape has benefits and costs at smaller units of selection. If I catch someone trying to rape my sister or daughter, I'm going to try to kill him.
Shawn at June 25, 2009 7:01 AM
I agree with you lovelysoul ("this one just doesn't conform to the simple box everyone wants to place it in"). Opinions should not be simply accepted as fact. The first case of that is that human alpha males do not rape. Did I miss the established certainty of this? I am skeptical (though I accept a significant amount of ignorance on any studies that exist). The second opinion, seemingly accepted as fact, is that offspring produced by rape are abandoned. This is a fact based on one study of baboons?
Am I wrong to believe that studies of humans are needed to consider either of these opinions a certainty?
TW at June 25, 2009 6:29 PM
Actually, TW, I don't think anything was asserted as fact.
I don't know how you get from "tend to be x" to "are never y", but you did it twice in one post.
brian at June 25, 2009 8:20 PM
Leave a comment