Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

What counts as human rationality: reasoning processes that embody content-independent formal theories, such as propositional logic, or reasoning processes that are well designed for solving important adaptive problems? Most theories of human reasoning have been based on content-independent formal rationality, whereas adaptive reasoning, ecological or evolutionary, has been little explored. We elaborate and test an evolutionary approach, Cosmides’ (1989) social contract theory, using the Wason selection task. In the first part, we disentangle the theoretical concept of a “social contract” from that of a “cheater-detection algorithm.” We demonstrate that the fact that a rule is perceived as a social contract—or a conditional permission or obligation, as Cheng and Holyoak (1985) proposed—is not sufficient to elicit Cosmides’ striking results, which we replicated. The crucial issue is not semantic (the meaning of the rule), but pragmatic: whether a person is cued into the perspective of a party who can be cheated. In the second part, we distinguish between social contracts with bilateral and unilateral cheating options. Perspective change in contracts with bilateral cheating options turns P & not-Q responses into not-P & Q responses. The results strongly support social contract theory, contradict availability theory, and cannot be accounted for by pragmatic reasoning schema theory, which lacks the pragmatic concepts of perspectives and cheating detection.

Present conditions and selection pressures are irrelevant to the present design of orga-nisms and do not explain how or why organisms behave adaptively, when they do. To whatever non-chance extent organisms are behaving adaptively, it is 1) because of the operation of underlying adaptations whose present design is the product of selection in the past, and 2) because present conditions resemble past conditions in those specific ways made developmentally and functionally important by the design of those adap-tations. All adaptations evolved in response to the repeating elements of past environ-ments, and their structure reflects in detail the recurrent structure of ancestral envi-ronments. Even planning mechanisms (such as “consciousness”), which supposedly deal with novel situations, depend on ancestrally shaped categorization processes and are therefore not free of the past. In fact, the categorization of each new situation into evolutionarily repeating classes involves another kind of adaptation, the emotions, which match specialized modes of organismic operation to evolutionarily recurrent situations. The detailed statistical structure of these iterated systems of events is re-flected in the detailed structure of the algorithms that govern emotional state. For this

Abstract not found

Evolutionary approaches to judgment under uncertainty have led to new data showing that untutored subject reliably produce judgments that conform to may principles of probability theory when (a) they are asked to compute a frequency instead of the probability of a single event, and (b) the relevant information is expressed as frequencies. But are the frequencycomputation systems implicated in these experiments better at operating over some kinds of input than others? Principles of object perception and principles of adaptive design led us to propose the individuation hypothesis: that these systems are designed to produce wellcalibrated statistical inferences when they operate over representations of “whole ” objects, events, and locations. In a series of experiments on Bayesian reasoning, we show that human performance can be systematically improved or degraded by varying whether a correct solution requires one to compute hit and false-alarm rates over “natural ” units, such as whole objects, as opposed to inseparable aspects, views, and other parsings that violate evolved principles of object construal. The ability to make well-calibrated probability judgments depends, at a very basic level, on the ability to count. The

How selfish does our evolutionary history suggest that humans will be? We explore models in which groups are formed and dissolved and where reproduction of individuals is determined by their payoffs in a game played within groups. If groups are formed “randomly”and reproductive success of group founders is determined by a multi-person prisoners ’ dilemma game, then selfish behavior will prevail over maximization of group payoffs. However, interesting models exist in which “group selection”sustains cooperative behavior. Forces that support cooperative behavior include assortative matching in groups, group longevity, and punishment-based group norms. “A selector of sufficient knowledge and power might perhaps obtain from the genes at present available in the human species a race combining an average intellect equal to that of Shakespeare with the stature of Carnera. But he could not produce a race of angels. For the moral character or for the wings he would have to await or produce suitable mutations.”... J.B.S. Haldane (Haldane 1932), p. 110

A reconceptualization of stigma is presented that changes the emphasis from the devaluation of an individual's identity to the process by which individuals who satisfy certain criteria come to be excluded from various kinds of social interactions. The authors propose that phenomena currently placed under the general rubric of stigma involve a set of distinct psychological systems designed by natural selection to solve specific problems associated with sociality. In particular, the authors suggest that human beings possess cognitive adaptations designed to cause them to avoid poor social exchange partners, join cooperative groups (for purposes of between-group competition and exploitation), and avoid contact with those who are differentially likely to carry communicable pathogens. The evolutionary view contributes to the current conceptualization of stigma by providing an account of the ultimate function of Stigmatization and helping to explain its consensual nature.

Evolution brought brains and minds into a world initially devoid of inteUlgent life. The evolutionary process designed the neural machinery that generates in-tehgent behavior, and important insights into how this machinery works can be gained by understanding how evolution constructs organisms. This is the ratio-nale that underlies research in evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology was founded on interloclang contributions from evolutionary biology, cognitive science, psychology, anthropology, and neuro-science. It reflects an attempt to think through, from first principles, how cur-rent knowledge from these various fields can be integrated into a single, consistent, sciennfic framework for the study of the mind and brain (Cosmides