The Experts below are selected from a list of 405 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Berglund Kyle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Why Do We Kill? A Review of Past and Current Theories on the Nature of Murder
Carleton Digital Commons, 2019Co-Authors: Berglund KyleAbstract:Research indicates that humans have been killing one another since the evolution of our species and some theorists suggest that interpersonal violence and murder may be components of human nature, evolved for the purpose of reproductive fitness. Evolutionary Psychologist David Buss claims that not only is the human race biologically predisposed to murderous behavior, but the tendency to think about killing other individuals is a function of adaptive problem-solving. Critics argue that human behaviors are produced by adaptations to our environment rather than by functions leftover from the Pleistocene. The purpose of this paper is to investigate Buss’s research and alternative theories in order to explain why some individuals among us go as far as to murder another individual despite the known consequences of doing so. It is concluded that murder is an Evolutionary function of human nature that resides in us all but is regulated by a combination of innate self-restraint and social learning behavior
Douglas T Kenrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
sex murder and the meaning of life a Psychologist investigates how evolution cognition and complexity are revolutionizing our view of human nature
2013Co-Authors: Douglas T KenrickAbstract:"Kenrick writes like a dream."-Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Biology and Neurology, Stanford University; author of A Primate's Memoir and Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers What do sex and murder have to do with the meaning of life? Everything. In Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life, social Psychologist Douglas Kenrick exposes the selfish animalistic underside of human nature, and shows how it is intimately connected to our greatest and most selfless achievements. Masterfully integrating cognitive science, Evolutionary psychology, and complexity theory, this intriguing book paints a comprehensive picture of the principles that govern our lives. As Kenrick divulges, beneath our civilized veneer, human beings are a lot like howling hyenas and barking baboons, with heads full of homicidal tendencies and sexual fantasies. But, in his view, many ingrained, apparently irrational behaviors-such as inclinations to one-night stands, racial prejudices, and conspicuous consumption-ultimately manifest what he calls "Deep Rationality." Although our heads are full of simple selfish biases that evolved to help our ancestors survive, modern human beings are anything but simple and selfish cavemen. Kenrick argues that simple and selfish mental mechanisms we inherited from our ancestors ultimately give rise to the multifaceted social lives that we humans lead today, and to the most positive features of humanity, including generosity, artistic creativity, love, and familial bonds. And out of those simple mechanisms emerge all the complexities of society, including international conflicts and global economic markets. By exploring the nuance of social psychology and the surprising results of his own research, Kenrick offers a detailed picture of what makes us caring, creative, and complex-that is, fully human. Illuminated with stories from Kenrick's own colorful experiences -- from his criminally inclined shantytown Irish relatives, his own multiple high school expulsions, broken marriages, and homicidal fantasies, to his eventual success as an Evolutionary Psychologist and loving father of two boys separated by 26 years -- this book is an exploration of our mental biases and failures, and our mind's great successes. Idiosyncratic, controversial, and fascinating, Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life uncovers the pitfalls and promise of our biological inheritance.
Bracanovic Tomislav - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mating Intelligence, Moral Virtues, and Methodological Vices
2010Co-Authors: Bracanovic TomislavAbstract:According to the ‘mating intelligence’ theory by Evolutionary Psychologist Geoffrey Miller, human morality is a system of sexually selected traits which serve as costly signals to the other sex about one’s fitness and readiness to take care for possible offspring. Starting from the standard prediction of Evolutionary psychology that sexual selection produces psychological sex differences in human mating strategies, ‘mating intelligence’ theory is analyzed for its compatibility with several psychological theories about sex differences in moral traits like moral reasoning, judgment and orientation. It is argued that the ‘mating intelligence’ theory, as a theory about the the evolution of morality, comes too dangerously close to being unfalsifiable because it embodies some auxiliary hypotheses and vague definitions which make it practically immune to every possible empirical finding concerning sex differences in human moral traits
Dane, Laura K. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
How beliefs get in the way of the acceptance of Evolutionary psychology
'Frontiers Media SA', 2014Co-Authors: Jonason, Peter K., Dane, Laura K.Abstract:There can be no doubt there is serious resistance to Evolutionary psychology (EP) as a theoretical paradigm from both within the field (e.g., social psychology) and in other disciplines (e.g., social sciences). Numerous researchers (Harris, 2003; Eastwick et al., 2014) appear to have made it their objective to show how predictions made and studies conducted by Evolutionary Psychologists are flawed (and even outright sexist). Such research programs have left Evolutionary Psychologists scratching their heads with the simple, yet fundamental question of why is everyone not an Evolutionary Psychologist? We contend there are essentially four different types of psychological resistance to EP, all of which are a function of an individual's philosophical belief systems, whether they are implicit or explicit. The biases are not unique to mainstream psychology or even researchers but, instead, may be endemic in people, more generally. We focus our attention on researchers because we wish to draw attention to biases in those who have been educated to be less biased. Assumptions pervade all of science, what matters is holding the fewest and most reasonable assumptions possible. We feel the theory of evolution offers just that, but there may be a series of psychological blocks that exclude individuals from thinking clearly about evolution in reference to humans and to eschew what Evolutionary predictions/findings mean
Fraser, Benjamin James - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sexual selection and the evolution of morality
2018Co-Authors: Fraser, Benjamin JamesAbstract:In this thesis I discuss the Sexual Selection for Morality (SSM) hypothesis, which seeks to explain the evolution of morality in terms of sexual selection and costly signalling. The first part of the thesis puts SSM on the table for critical dissection. My starting point is the work on sexual selection, costly signalling, and morality by Evolutionary Psychologist Geoffrey Miller. I clarify and elaborate upon Miller's views by drawing on recent work in signalling theory. The result is a clearer and more nuanced version of SSM. In the second part of the thesis, I evaluate the empirical evidence for this revised version of SSM. I first clarify the predictions of the hypothesis, then survey relevant literature from biology, psychology, anthropology, and economics. Findings from these fields combine to support the claim that moral behaviour plays a signalling role. However, it appears likely that such signals are aimed at many receivers in addition to potential mates, including potential social allies as well as sexual and social rivals. SSM should thus be seen as part of a more general signalling-based account of morality. The third and final part of the thesis considers the metaethical implications of the truth of SSM. A relatively recent arrival on the metaethical scene is the Darwinian debunker, who claims that an Evolutionary explanation of morality is, broadly speaking, undermining of morality. A prominent line of reply has been to claim that the fact (if it be one) that human morality is an adaptation shaped by selection over many millennia provides reason to think that our faculty for making moral judgements is likely to mostly produce true judgements. I call this the reliabilist reply. If SSM is true, I argue, then not all the conditions required for the success of the reliabilist reply are met. In particular, what I call the tracking condition fails to be met. The truth of SSM thus counts against the plausibility of the reliabilist reply and lends support to Darwinian debunkings of morality
