The cranky anti-work lefty in me wants to point out that the “man the hunter” narrative serves capitalist interests. If men see their position as employees/breadwinners as part of an essential evolutionary function that’s been around since the beginning of time, rather than a contingent feature of the current social model and it’s associated gender roles, they may be less likely to question it or rebel against it.
Indeed. I've thought about this a lot. And I also couldn't help but notice while reading through Lee's work that he used a rather Western-capitalist way of formulating his numbers—he compared the !Kung's work habits with the forty-hour work week. This is actually *much less* favorable to the men-as-hunter-provider hypothesis, as he also neglected to count anything that wasn't obtaining food as "household chores" which didn't get counted (because they didn't view household chores as work back then). This makes the lack of productive hunts look even more embarrassing.
Yes, it’s not just conjecture. Conservatives are often very explicit about using this narrative to shame young men into straightening up, flying right, and working hard. Jordan Peterson does it all the time.
I actually started writing this by watching two Peterson videos back-to-back to get into the headspace, trying to meet the hypothesis where it is, so this comment is perfect.
I disagree with you here. While evolutionary psychology may not be able to answer why we see behavior today with evidence of historical behavior, that holds true of all evolution. If we see evidence in the past, that may indicate characteristics today, but not all characteristics today are products of the past, especially in psychology.
In the meantime, though, evolutionary psychology certainly explains why gay couples continue to exist - there is an evolutionary advantage to cultures that accept the Queer experience.
i'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. i'm saying evo psych is largely speculative, and tbh, i don't think there's anything wrong with that level of engagement at all-- for people engaged in research or seeking answers to identity and suchlike. (unless weaponized, that is-- and then i mean how it's used, not what it is or whence it comes)
It is very speculative and the research is extremely weak. It’s funny, 99.99% of the time someone tells me they believe evolutionary psychology, they start telling me about things that are decidedly not evolutionary (evolved mutations that conferred advantages for survival and reproduction significant enough to displace other traits). They’ll start telling me about the “evolutionary benefit of X trait” that conferred no evolutionary benefits significant enough to displace other traits.
I think this is because evolutionary psychology makes much more intuitive sense to everyday people than genetics does. But most human traits are just genetic, mutations that had nothing to do with the environment and didn’t confer an evolutionary advantage. There are a lot of neutral traits and even disadvantages traits that aren’t bad enough to totally prevent someone from having kids, and thus they stick around. There’s no evolutionary explanation for them.
And this is the problem with evolutionary psychology. We can dream up all these hypotheses, but how do we disprove them (Karl Popper)? How do we show that they did or did not confer the evolutionary advantages long in the past?
What I disagreed with - if nothing else - is characterizing evolutionary psychology as requiring interviews with people who lived long ago. I don't debate behavioral patterns can be weaponized - I'm a transgender scientist, and believe me, I see those weapons leveled at me daily.
That said, there is value in considering psychological characteristics we observe today to people long ago. The canonical example is not interviewing Neanderthalensis, but finding purposes to characteristics we consider pathologies today. For instance, depression, anxiety, dissociation - did those confer evolutionary advantages to early hominins?
"For instance, depression, anxiety, dissociation - did those confer evolutionary advantages to early hominins?"
To understand this, we'd have to understand the *social* environment of those who lived long ago. This is very different from understanding the ecological environment, climate, etc.
Of course, as I just mentioned in my latest on the subject, I'm not against evolutionary psychology per se, and don't think we should write anything they have to say off as if they were Alex Jones. In fact, it's the opposite—I'm very much absolutist, universal stances. The question should be, always, what does the evidence say?
These problems are, of course, summaries in Substack comments sections, not intended to be universalized and taken as an absolute—that's precisely the kind of inflexible thinking I continuously cautious against.
The big reason I'm critical of it (right now) is there is *a lot* of scientific criticism from various fields and, yet, it gets so much airtime by uncritical voices. The story just feels so one-sided, and it's playing a massive role in our cultural discourse right now, leading countless people to believe very, very untrue things that also happen to be destructive. It's important that people know that it's not the end-all-be-all of explanations for the hows and whys of human relationships.
I'd venture to say that almost every single layperson who believes evolutionary psychology is basically gospel can't even name opposing theories and hypotheses that have challenged it over the years.
That's a problem because human behavior is extremely complex and our understanding of it is very, very far from anything like a total consensus.
I understand you, my friend. And my point is that evolution cannot be broken down simply as biology distinct from psychology distinct from psychiatry distinct from... The reductionist tendency of most scientists led to where we are today.
Frankly, I can't speculate on what a layperson would believe. You're probably right, and that's why much of my work has been to educate on the science of the human experience, but as science includes human behavior, the problem is complicated, as you note.
Thank you for this discussion, Joe - it's long overdue inside and outside academic institutions. 💜
oh. i get it. i mean, i was being hyperbolic, but point taken. i will say that attempting to map our own responses/behaviors/etc to what we might speculate early hominins behaved like is… a tall order. tangentially, i believe i came across an article (based on a recent study of adhd—which i haven’t read yet, btw) that indicates some features of adhd are remnants of hunter/gatherer patterns. idk, still have to find it again, and then read it. but it was something like that. i’m guessing you’re talking something along those lines?
Let me start off by saying my initial field of study was molecular biology, specifically genetics. I wrote a series of three articles around evolution and gender in 2023, including some investigation of evolutionary psychology. I can send you those links in DM if you like.
That said, a good resource I happen to like is Carin Bondar. She integrates both biology and behavior, which we really have to do in order to make sense of history. I'll make more specific comments on the article you published today.
At least some of the blame here needs to go to Charles Darwin. He wrote that toxic masculine behavior of his time was "evidence" men must have an evolutionary reason for contemporary social roles. He used words glorifying the behavior, not decrying it, as I just did. But he also ignored that just because you see something today doesn't mean it has to come through biological evolution.
Of course, Darwin was also very careful to leave *homo sapiens* out of the stream of evolutionary theory - he was well aware pissing off the church would affect him personally. And in doing so, he defeated his own theory with backward ideas of social roles and biology. We still suffer from this lack of scientific courage today, as your article indicates. 💜
Yes, I too feel this way. Darwin was great, in a way, and obviously, we science-minded people owe him a tremendous debt...but he's no saint, he got a LOT wrong, which caused many future generations to get A LOT wrong and that caused a LOT of error. He's like one of those really old bands that aren't very good, but did a lot to further music—I have to give them respect, but I don't have to listen to them. It's also bothersome that so few people are willing to criticize the fact that he was very much an undaring product of Victorian England, complete with all the horrors and social nonsense that came from it, and it is reflected in his work. What was considered "evolutionary and universal" was really just a reflection of Victorian England, especially when it comes to the idea of sexual selection.
Oh, I didn't call Darwin great - others had made comments Darwin put into one book. His book was not a monster scientific achievement.
I have many comments to make about the effect Christianity's political clout had on science. We were likely to be burned at the stake in the Medieval period, and that fear persists today in vestigial form. Darwin was but one example. Many scientists today continue to act as apologists as opposed to explaining natural phenomena. It's hard to stand against people screaming you're going to hell for observing nature. 💜
So what I took from this is that in hunter gatherer societies men typically hunted more and gathered less than women and because hunting isn’t an efficient way to collect food then men typically were not providers.
As for the comment about the dating economics theories I’m not sure this says anything about it either for or against.
Hey Daniel, thanks for reading and commenting. Good to see you around. Maybe this will help clarify a bit.
The dating economics theory says that women trade fertility for men's resources (to provide for their children), and that this is an *evolved* behavior (sociobiological) that's universal among all humans. The theory holds that it evolved in the Stone Age when we were hunter-gatherers. The theory hinges on the trade-off of fertility for resources.
So if men couldn't provide significant resources, where does that leave the theory?
What did men have to offer for women's fertility instead if hunting is off the table?
This isn't the only problem with the hypothesis. I've got two more follow-ups in the works right now, so stay tuned. There's simply no way to discuss this stuff in 3,000 words, there's simply too much to cover.
I try to keep myself away from Substack except for the weekends
Where I was thinking was more as the economic model where it’s looking at how people allocate their resources and on what basis
Over the top of that is the drivers that get people to allocate limited resources and time and attention to a given activity
I’d agree that this can change the view what resources matter and it’s clear that in early humans women weren’t trading fertility for provision
I was trying to say that I don’t think that post said anything specific about the economic model but it had clear implications for the drivers in the model (note a lot of my economics are lacking)
I’d have to say you got a lot in your 3000 words and it laid it out nicely
Spot on. I think that’s my beef with it. If they said “In Western culture, people sometimes tend to have an economic view of relationships [a lot of us don’t],” I’d have few issues with it, if any. But to say that “All people everywhere have an economic view of relationships, and it’s universal and unchanging destiny,” is very different.
The cranky anti-work lefty in me wants to point out that the “man the hunter” narrative serves capitalist interests. If men see their position as employees/breadwinners as part of an essential evolutionary function that’s been around since the beginning of time, rather than a contingent feature of the current social model and it’s associated gender roles, they may be less likely to question it or rebel against it.
Indeed. I've thought about this a lot. And I also couldn't help but notice while reading through Lee's work that he used a rather Western-capitalist way of formulating his numbers—he compared the !Kung's work habits with the forty-hour work week. This is actually *much less* favorable to the men-as-hunter-provider hypothesis, as he also neglected to count anything that wasn't obtaining food as "household chores" which didn't get counted (because they didn't view household chores as work back then). This makes the lack of productive hunts look even more embarrassing.
Yes, it’s not just conjecture. Conservatives are often very explicit about using this narrative to shame young men into straightening up, flying right, and working hard. Jordan Peterson does it all the time.
I actually started writing this by watching two Peterson videos back-to-back to get into the headspace, trying to meet the hypothesis where it is, so this comment is perfect.
Your readers appreciate the sacrifices you make :)
one better: how many prehistoric humans answered your survey? that’s the percentage of trust you should have in “evo-psych”.
Spot-on.
i aimz to please. ok, sometimes to provoke.
I disagree with you here. While evolutionary psychology may not be able to answer why we see behavior today with evidence of historical behavior, that holds true of all evolution. If we see evidence in the past, that may indicate characteristics today, but not all characteristics today are products of the past, especially in psychology.
In the meantime, though, evolutionary psychology certainly explains why gay couples continue to exist - there is an evolutionary advantage to cultures that accept the Queer experience.
i'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. i'm saying evo psych is largely speculative, and tbh, i don't think there's anything wrong with that level of engagement at all-- for people engaged in research or seeking answers to identity and suchlike. (unless weaponized, that is-- and then i mean how it's used, not what it is or whence it comes)
Indeed.
It is very speculative and the research is extremely weak. It’s funny, 99.99% of the time someone tells me they believe evolutionary psychology, they start telling me about things that are decidedly not evolutionary (evolved mutations that conferred advantages for survival and reproduction significant enough to displace other traits). They’ll start telling me about the “evolutionary benefit of X trait” that conferred no evolutionary benefits significant enough to displace other traits.
I think this is because evolutionary psychology makes much more intuitive sense to everyday people than genetics does. But most human traits are just genetic, mutations that had nothing to do with the environment and didn’t confer an evolutionary advantage. There are a lot of neutral traits and even disadvantages traits that aren’t bad enough to totally prevent someone from having kids, and thus they stick around. There’s no evolutionary explanation for them.
And this is the problem with evolutionary psychology. We can dream up all these hypotheses, but how do we disprove them (Karl Popper)? How do we show that they did or did not confer the evolutionary advantages long in the past?
We can’t.
What I disagreed with - if nothing else - is characterizing evolutionary psychology as requiring interviews with people who lived long ago. I don't debate behavioral patterns can be weaponized - I'm a transgender scientist, and believe me, I see those weapons leveled at me daily.
That said, there is value in considering psychological characteristics we observe today to people long ago. The canonical example is not interviewing Neanderthalensis, but finding purposes to characteristics we consider pathologies today. For instance, depression, anxiety, dissociation - did those confer evolutionary advantages to early hominins?
"For instance, depression, anxiety, dissociation - did those confer evolutionary advantages to early hominins?"
To understand this, we'd have to understand the *social* environment of those who lived long ago. This is very different from understanding the ecological environment, climate, etc.
Of course, as I just mentioned in my latest on the subject, I'm not against evolutionary psychology per se, and don't think we should write anything they have to say off as if they were Alex Jones. In fact, it's the opposite—I'm very much absolutist, universal stances. The question should be, always, what does the evidence say?
These problems are, of course, summaries in Substack comments sections, not intended to be universalized and taken as an absolute—that's precisely the kind of inflexible thinking I continuously cautious against.
The big reason I'm critical of it (right now) is there is *a lot* of scientific criticism from various fields and, yet, it gets so much airtime by uncritical voices. The story just feels so one-sided, and it's playing a massive role in our cultural discourse right now, leading countless people to believe very, very untrue things that also happen to be destructive. It's important that people know that it's not the end-all-be-all of explanations for the hows and whys of human relationships.
I'd venture to say that almost every single layperson who believes evolutionary psychology is basically gospel can't even name opposing theories and hypotheses that have challenged it over the years.
That's a problem because human behavior is extremely complex and our understanding of it is very, very far from anything like a total consensus.
I understand you, my friend. And my point is that evolution cannot be broken down simply as biology distinct from psychology distinct from psychiatry distinct from... The reductionist tendency of most scientists led to where we are today.
Frankly, I can't speculate on what a layperson would believe. You're probably right, and that's why much of my work has been to educate on the science of the human experience, but as science includes human behavior, the problem is complicated, as you note.
Thank you for this discussion, Joe - it's long overdue inside and outside academic institutions. 💜
oh. i get it. i mean, i was being hyperbolic, but point taken. i will say that attempting to map our own responses/behaviors/etc to what we might speculate early hominins behaved like is… a tall order. tangentially, i believe i came across an article (based on a recent study of adhd—which i haven’t read yet, btw) that indicates some features of adhd are remnants of hunter/gatherer patterns. idk, still have to find it again, and then read it. but it was something like that. i’m guessing you’re talking something along those lines?
I'd like to see that research if you know where I can find it.
Let me start off by saying my initial field of study was molecular biology, specifically genetics. I wrote a series of three articles around evolution and gender in 2023, including some investigation of evolutionary psychology. I can send you those links in DM if you like.
That said, a good resource I happen to like is Carin Bondar. She integrates both biology and behavior, which we really have to do in order to make sense of history. I'll make more specific comments on the article you published today.
Yes, I'd like that. I'm always eager to get whatever I can get my hands on.
Humanity is a lot more complicated than we thought back then
Excellent, Joe. Always appreciate your focused interest in this important topic, and your careful and (to my unprofessional eye) exhaustive research.
Thank you so much.
At least some of the blame here needs to go to Charles Darwin. He wrote that toxic masculine behavior of his time was "evidence" men must have an evolutionary reason for contemporary social roles. He used words glorifying the behavior, not decrying it, as I just did. But he also ignored that just because you see something today doesn't mean it has to come through biological evolution.
Of course, Darwin was also very careful to leave *homo sapiens* out of the stream of evolutionary theory - he was well aware pissing off the church would affect him personally. And in doing so, he defeated his own theory with backward ideas of social roles and biology. We still suffer from this lack of scientific courage today, as your article indicates. 💜
Yes, I too feel this way. Darwin was great, in a way, and obviously, we science-minded people owe him a tremendous debt...but he's no saint, he got a LOT wrong, which caused many future generations to get A LOT wrong and that caused a LOT of error. He's like one of those really old bands that aren't very good, but did a lot to further music—I have to give them respect, but I don't have to listen to them. It's also bothersome that so few people are willing to criticize the fact that he was very much an undaring product of Victorian England, complete with all the horrors and social nonsense that came from it, and it is reflected in his work. What was considered "evolutionary and universal" was really just a reflection of Victorian England, especially when it comes to the idea of sexual selection.
Oh, I didn't call Darwin great - others had made comments Darwin put into one book. His book was not a monster scientific achievement.
I have many comments to make about the effect Christianity's political clout had on science. We were likely to be burned at the stake in the Medieval period, and that fear persists today in vestigial form. Darwin was but one example. Many scientists today continue to act as apologists as opposed to explaining natural phenomena. It's hard to stand against people screaming you're going to hell for observing nature. 💜
Absolutely.
I'm in agreement with you. :)
So what I took from this is that in hunter gatherer societies men typically hunted more and gathered less than women and because hunting isn’t an efficient way to collect food then men typically were not providers.
As for the comment about the dating economics theories I’m not sure this says anything about it either for or against.
Hey Daniel, thanks for reading and commenting. Good to see you around. Maybe this will help clarify a bit.
The dating economics theory says that women trade fertility for men's resources (to provide for their children), and that this is an *evolved* behavior (sociobiological) that's universal among all humans. The theory holds that it evolved in the Stone Age when we were hunter-gatherers. The theory hinges on the trade-off of fertility for resources.
So if men couldn't provide significant resources, where does that leave the theory?
What did men have to offer for women's fertility instead if hunting is off the table?
This isn't the only problem with the hypothesis. I've got two more follow-ups in the works right now, so stay tuned. There's simply no way to discuss this stuff in 3,000 words, there's simply too much to cover.
Cheers.
I try to keep myself away from Substack except for the weekends
Where I was thinking was more as the economic model where it’s looking at how people allocate their resources and on what basis
Over the top of that is the drivers that get people to allocate limited resources and time and attention to a given activity
I’d agree that this can change the view what resources matter and it’s clear that in early humans women weren’t trading fertility for provision
I was trying to say that I don’t think that post said anything specific about the economic model but it had clear implications for the drivers in the model (note a lot of my economics are lacking)
I’d have to say you got a lot in your 3000 words and it laid it out nicely
And me too, I take time away from the Internet generally. Always take breaks when needed. It’s good to keep it a part of your life.
Spot on. I think that’s my beef with it. If they said “In Western culture, people sometimes tend to have an economic view of relationships [a lot of us don’t],” I’d have few issues with it, if any. But to say that “All people everywhere have an economic view of relationships, and it’s universal and unchanging destiny,” is very different.