Wilson and colleagues argue for the integration of evolutionary theory into the human behavioral sciences in order to bring about a science of intentional change. Such an integration is sorely needed: Given current rates of anthropogenic environmental damage, we need to change not only our management of the earth, but also the culturally guided mindsets and the institutions that shape perception and guide behavior. In particular, cultural evolution through selection on guided variation and between-group competition can help us understand how to effect intentional change through direct influence on both variation and selection pressures. But the way in which we approach such interdisciplinary work will play an enormous role in its success.
Evolutionary theory has much to offer the social sciences. Evolutionary theorists have done a better job than most at formalizing the processes of change among individuals in a population responding to internal and external pressures, resulting in useful and versatile constructs such as the adaptive landscape, the red queen, and the hawk-dove game. Frameworks, however, come from all over. Game-theoretic formulations such as the prisoner's dilemma originally came to evolutionary theory via economics and political science. Many fields have frameworks and constructs that would be valuable to a science of intentional change. Consider dynamical systems theory, which provides a formal framework to how interlinked systems change over time. Evolution, as a theory of change, is related, but dynamical systems theory can be discussed independently and can also help us understand the behavior of individuals and groups. Examples include the dynamics of romantic bonds and marital conflict (Cook et al. Reference Cook, Tyson, White, Rushe, Gottman and Murray1995; Ferrer et al. Reference Ferrer, Steele and Hsieh2012), relationships between psychotherapists and their patients (Liebovitch et al. Reference Liebovitch, Peluso, Norman, Su and Gottman2011), the development of personality (Nowak et al. Reference Nowak, Vallacher and Zochowski2005), and the dynamics of opinions and social identities (Deffuant et al. Reference Deffuant, Neau, Amblard and Weisbuch2000; Smaldino et al. Reference Smaldino, Pickett, Sherman and Schank2012). Much insight can be gained without an explicit invocation of evolution.
More importantly, vaulting evolutionary theory to the top of the theoretical totem pole risks alienating researchers who might be receptive to input from an evolutionary perspective but are hesitant to consider it as an overarching framework. Social scientists and scholars have no wish to be colonized by a “universal Darwinism” (Hodgson Reference Hodgson2005). They have their own theoretical perspectives that can be informed by evolutionary theory without being exclusively defined by it. An imperative to draw all social science into the evolutionary framework risks turning off researchers who could otherwise benefit from the wisdom accrued by evolutionary thinkers. We think this can be avoided. The question is not how can evolutionary theory unite the social sciences, but how can it serve and connect them in order to fill important gaps.
One particularly striking gap concerns the processes of endogenous cultural change. Anthropologists study culture, but often without reference to the cognitive mechanisms that make culture possible, or the use of quantitative models. Psychologists study human cognition and social behavior, but rarely the population-level consequences of culturally guided behavior. Economists study the societal distribution of resources and the dynamics of individual choice, but treat preferences as exogenous and ignore culture. And most social sciences have not adopted methods for modeling emergent or endogenous behavior within social systems. Although there are exceptions, disciplinary traditions have developed in such a way that endogenous cultural change is rarely addressed directly. Evolutionary theory could provide the necessary links between these different approaches.
We propose a few considerations for scholars interested in joining the evolutionary and social sciences. One place to start is to recognize that evolutionary theory has already spread widely across the social sciences. There are evolutionary traditions in psychology, but also in anthropology (Alvard Reference Alvard1998; Boyd & Richerson Reference Boyd and Richerson1987; White Reference White1943), economics (Dopfer Reference Dopfer2005; Veblen Reference Veblen1898), and sociology and organizational studies (Aldrich Reference Aldrich1999; Hannan & Freeman Reference Hannan and Freeman1977; McKelvey Reference McKelvey1982). These are the frontlines of the integration of evolutionary thinking with the complexities of human behavior and society. Each of these traditions, however, remains marginal in its own field. They are not integrated, and they use different lexicons and highlight different processes. One way to pull the social sciences together is to foster links among the different extant evolutionary subfields.
We also caution against diving too deep into evolutionary theory without carefully establishing a grounded framework and definitions. In this regard, it is more productive for the evolutionist to take steps backward to establish a common set of referents than it is to push forward with the complexities of one's theory without first establishing trust. The terms “symbotype” and “Darwin machine” are examples of terms that, although they are well defined, may push too far forward into the domains of the very social scientists that Wilson et al. are trying to court.
Social scientists are wary because they see evolutionists making big assumptions (e.g., Lumsden & Wilson Reference Lumsden and Wilson1981). But the core of evolutionary theory is so simple that it should never offend anyone, if presented appropriately. Adaptation occurs when selection acts on heritable variation. The general theory makes no big assumptions about the strength of selection or the sources of heritability or variation, only that adaptation occurs when all three combine. This disarmingly simple idea is a good candidate for a unifying behavioral framework. Evolution has also provided many valuable insights on phenomena such as maladaptation, path dependence, and the interactions between levels of selection. But the value of these insights cannot be realized unless evolutionists take a step backward in learning the full complexities of the topics their colleagues study. Wilson et al. do this as well as anyone.
We agree that evolutionary perspectives may help us organize many divergent realms of the science of human behavior. We suggest that evolutionary research will be welcomed if evolution is used as a way to connect topics in behavioral sciences, thus providing value from the bottom up, rather than suggesting reorganization from the top down. The contribution by Wilson et al. is an important step toward making those connections.
Wilson and colleagues argue for the integration of evolutionary theory into the human behavioral sciences in order to bring about a science of intentional change. Such an integration is sorely needed: Given current rates of anthropogenic environmental damage, we need to change not only our management of the earth, but also the culturally guided mindsets and the institutions that shape perception and guide behavior. In particular, cultural evolution through selection on guided variation and between-group competition can help us understand how to effect intentional change through direct influence on both variation and selection pressures. But the way in which we approach such interdisciplinary work will play an enormous role in its success.
Evolutionary theory has much to offer the social sciences. Evolutionary theorists have done a better job than most at formalizing the processes of change among individuals in a population responding to internal and external pressures, resulting in useful and versatile constructs such as the adaptive landscape, the red queen, and the hawk-dove game. Frameworks, however, come from all over. Game-theoretic formulations such as the prisoner's dilemma originally came to evolutionary theory via economics and political science. Many fields have frameworks and constructs that would be valuable to a science of intentional change. Consider dynamical systems theory, which provides a formal framework to how interlinked systems change over time. Evolution, as a theory of change, is related, but dynamical systems theory can be discussed independently and can also help us understand the behavior of individuals and groups. Examples include the dynamics of romantic bonds and marital conflict (Cook et al. Reference Cook, Tyson, White, Rushe, Gottman and Murray1995; Ferrer et al. Reference Ferrer, Steele and Hsieh2012), relationships between psychotherapists and their patients (Liebovitch et al. Reference Liebovitch, Peluso, Norman, Su and Gottman2011), the development of personality (Nowak et al. Reference Nowak, Vallacher and Zochowski2005), and the dynamics of opinions and social identities (Deffuant et al. Reference Deffuant, Neau, Amblard and Weisbuch2000; Smaldino et al. Reference Smaldino, Pickett, Sherman and Schank2012). Much insight can be gained without an explicit invocation of evolution.
More importantly, vaulting evolutionary theory to the top of the theoretical totem pole risks alienating researchers who might be receptive to input from an evolutionary perspective but are hesitant to consider it as an overarching framework. Social scientists and scholars have no wish to be colonized by a “universal Darwinism” (Hodgson Reference Hodgson2005). They have their own theoretical perspectives that can be informed by evolutionary theory without being exclusively defined by it. An imperative to draw all social science into the evolutionary framework risks turning off researchers who could otherwise benefit from the wisdom accrued by evolutionary thinkers. We think this can be avoided. The question is not how can evolutionary theory unite the social sciences, but how can it serve and connect them in order to fill important gaps.
One particularly striking gap concerns the processes of endogenous cultural change. Anthropologists study culture, but often without reference to the cognitive mechanisms that make culture possible, or the use of quantitative models. Psychologists study human cognition and social behavior, but rarely the population-level consequences of culturally guided behavior. Economists study the societal distribution of resources and the dynamics of individual choice, but treat preferences as exogenous and ignore culture. And most social sciences have not adopted methods for modeling emergent or endogenous behavior within social systems. Although there are exceptions, disciplinary traditions have developed in such a way that endogenous cultural change is rarely addressed directly. Evolutionary theory could provide the necessary links between these different approaches.
We propose a few considerations for scholars interested in joining the evolutionary and social sciences. One place to start is to recognize that evolutionary theory has already spread widely across the social sciences. There are evolutionary traditions in psychology, but also in anthropology (Alvard Reference Alvard1998; Boyd & Richerson Reference Boyd and Richerson1987; White Reference White1943), economics (Dopfer Reference Dopfer2005; Veblen Reference Veblen1898), and sociology and organizational studies (Aldrich Reference Aldrich1999; Hannan & Freeman Reference Hannan and Freeman1977; McKelvey Reference McKelvey1982). These are the frontlines of the integration of evolutionary thinking with the complexities of human behavior and society. Each of these traditions, however, remains marginal in its own field. They are not integrated, and they use different lexicons and highlight different processes. One way to pull the social sciences together is to foster links among the different extant evolutionary subfields.
We also caution against diving too deep into evolutionary theory without carefully establishing a grounded framework and definitions. In this regard, it is more productive for the evolutionist to take steps backward to establish a common set of referents than it is to push forward with the complexities of one's theory without first establishing trust. The terms “symbotype” and “Darwin machine” are examples of terms that, although they are well defined, may push too far forward into the domains of the very social scientists that Wilson et al. are trying to court.
Social scientists are wary because they see evolutionists making big assumptions (e.g., Lumsden & Wilson Reference Lumsden and Wilson1981). But the core of evolutionary theory is so simple that it should never offend anyone, if presented appropriately. Adaptation occurs when selection acts on heritable variation. The general theory makes no big assumptions about the strength of selection or the sources of heritability or variation, only that adaptation occurs when all three combine. This disarmingly simple idea is a good candidate for a unifying behavioral framework. Evolution has also provided many valuable insights on phenomena such as maladaptation, path dependence, and the interactions between levels of selection. But the value of these insights cannot be realized unless evolutionists take a step backward in learning the full complexities of the topics their colleagues study. Wilson et al. do this as well as anyone.
We agree that evolutionary perspectives may help us organize many divergent realms of the science of human behavior. We suggest that evolutionary research will be welcomed if evolution is used as a way to connect topics in behavioral sciences, thus providing value from the bottom up, rather than suggesting reorganization from the top down. The contribution by Wilson et al. is an important step toward making those connections.