Day 34
It seems increasingly common thee days for people to explain human behaviour in terms of processes determined by evolutionary factors. For example, I hear it theorized often that men are more promiscuous because they are trying to 'spread their seed' while women are less so because they plan to be more stable caregivers, in virtue of their 'mothering instinct.'
This is one of countless examples. We refer to our desire for particular foods as instinctual, we refer to our attraction toward people as a mere pheromone response, and so on and so forth.
While I am very much a firm believer in evolutionary theory and processes, it sure seems to me that all these notions about behaviours and dispositions as being evolutionary products/byproducts have run amok. The basis upon which most people make such assumptions seems to be pure correlational reasoning. Ie: "Well, hunter-gatherers must have needed to eat meat in order to survive, so If I happen to want to eat meat, that want must stem from evolved instinct."
The causal link is nonexistent. To say that B was caused by A, we require more than that A preceded B, and that B resembles A. For such a supposition to be accepted, one would have to provide evidentiary reasons to believe that B happened because of A. Such reasons are in very short supply, when compared to the level to which people are willing to accept such exceptions with them.
So, not to rain on any scientific parade, but I do hope people remember that theories don't confirm themselves!
Comments