The authors present a very nice argument for the integration of evolutionary theory, multiple levels of human development, and intentional cultural change. However, I would argue that the basis for their integration of evolutionary and social change, specifically the “Darwin machine,” is inherently flawed. Outside of forced-choice questionnaires, traditional evolutionary psychology (EP) models have had little empirical support from comparative animal, developmental, economic, and medical research; the concepts that EP has proposed, such as anatomically based mating strategies, massive modularity, extreme adaptation, and genetic reductionism, have been strongly attacked and referred to as junk science (Agin Reference Agin2006; Barve & Wagner Reference Barve and Wagner2013; Gibbs & Van Orden Reference Gibbs and Van Orden2010; Le Fanu Reference Le Fanu2010; Muller et al. Reference Muller, Thompson and Wrangham2006).
Traditional EP models are based on neo-Darwinian genetic reductionism perspectives that hold genes as the primary determining factor of adaptation; selection operating at the level of the gene will override any selective influence occurring above that level of organization (Alcock Reference Alcock2005; Buss Reference Buss2004; Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976/2006). In doing so, neo-Darwinistic theories have exalted the gene over the organism, so that the essence of evolution and development, and ultimately the entire spectrum of life, is simply different genes competing for survival and reproduction (Wesson Reference Wesson1991). However, when two basic elements interact, the result can be an entirely new structure with new properties that would not be found without the interaction; this is a central tenet of chemistry and development. The organization and interaction of the subunits in a dynamic system can result in novel properties of the system not independently found in the subunits alone (Gottlieb Reference Gottlieb1992; Zylstra Reference Zylstra1992). Considering that virtually all evolved organs and tissues in living organisms are organized as structural hierarchies (Ingber Reference Ingber2006), the emergence of complex organisms and their resulting ecological and social interactions cannot be mechanically reduced to their basic subcomponents (Levin Reference Levin1998; Reference Levin2000; Oyama Reference Oyama1985/2000; Wu Reference Wu1999). A progressive step forward would be to generate a model that encompasses different hierarchal and systems perspectives. Unfortunately, the Darwin machine concept does not completely encapsulate the processes of development during ontogeny that led to the evolution of different scalar levels of selection over phylogeny.
EP and neo-Darwinian theorists have focused so heavily on self-interested genetic propagation that, traditionally, evolution has been synonymous with competitive interactions. Competition resulting in selection is a major aspect of the evolutionary process; however, the emergence of complex organisms requires that interactions must also be integrative and constructive (Nowak et al. Reference Nowak, Sigmund and Leibowitz2000). The tenets of classical Darwinism – variation, selection, heritability – do not include aspects of cooperation and collaboration, fundamental mechanisms of biological and social diversity. Whereas the authors address its application in immune system functioning and change at the level of small groups, a Darwin machine concept inherently ignores cooperation as a fundamental aspect to all living systems.
Cooperation among subunits within a system generates a new level of selection by facilitating a self-organizing process, allowing for higher order and more complex structures to be maintained (Jain & Krishna Reference Jain and Krishna2001; Michod & Roze Reference Michod, Roze and Nehaniv1999). Basic chemical reactions, the building blocks of all living things, will naturally and spontaneously self-organize through cooperation (Stokely et al. Reference Stokely, Mazza, Stanley and Franzese2010). When cooperative pressure is able to override the competitive pressure among horizontally interacting units within a system, a new evolutionary level of selection can then be generated (Reeve & Keller Reference Reeve, Keller and Keller1999). From genes cooperating in genetic networks within genomes, organelles cooperating within eukaryotic cells, and cells cooperating to form multicellular organisms, to multicellular organisms cooperating to form cultures (Nowak Reference Nowak2006; for review, see West et al. Reference West, Griffin and Gardner2007), ultimately cooperation allows for the creation of new levels of organization through the integration of multiple contributors to a single function (Sirois et al. Reference Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Mareschal and Johnson2008). The opposing forces of competition and cooperation not only define the evolutionary history of living organisms but also define ontogenetic development, just as the generation of the human nervous system requires both cooperative and competitive processes (Edelman Reference Edelman2004; Edelman & Tononi Reference Edelman and Tononi2000).
The authors do an elegant job attempting to salvage traditional EP concepts; however, it may be beneficial in the long run to simply view traditional EP models as a historical remnant, such as Freudian psychology and radical behaviorism, primarily providing a sounding board for more accurate models. Unfortunately, EP models have not been able to fully reflect the intricate network of biology, ecology, and the multilevel interactions that generate living systems. Although the authors do address that humans develop within differing levels of social and cultural organization, the Darwin machine concept is too limiting in scope for a new science of intentional change. The standard social science model was simply a straw man used to bolster, and possibly sensationalize, a “new” field in psychology.
You have
Access
The authors present a very nice argument for the integration of evolutionary theory, multiple levels of human development, and intentional cultural change. However, I would argue that the basis for their integration of evolutionary and social change, specifically the “Darwin machine,” is inherently flawed. Outside of forced-choice questionnaires, traditional evolutionary psychology (EP) models have had little empirical support from comparative animal, developmental, economic, and medical research; the concepts that EP has proposed, such as anatomically based mating strategies, massive modularity, extreme adaptation, and genetic reductionism, have been strongly attacked and referred to as junk science (Agin Reference Agin2006; Barve & Wagner Reference Barve and Wagner2013; Gibbs & Van Orden Reference Gibbs and Van Orden2010; Le Fanu Reference Le Fanu2010; Muller et al. Reference Muller, Thompson and Wrangham2006).
Traditional EP models are based on neo-Darwinian genetic reductionism perspectives that hold genes as the primary determining factor of adaptation; selection operating at the level of the gene will override any selective influence occurring above that level of organization (Alcock Reference Alcock2005; Buss Reference Buss2004; Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976/2006). In doing so, neo-Darwinistic theories have exalted the gene over the organism, so that the essence of evolution and development, and ultimately the entire spectrum of life, is simply different genes competing for survival and reproduction (Wesson Reference Wesson1991). However, when two basic elements interact, the result can be an entirely new structure with new properties that would not be found without the interaction; this is a central tenet of chemistry and development. The organization and interaction of the subunits in a dynamic system can result in novel properties of the system not independently found in the subunits alone (Gottlieb Reference Gottlieb1992; Zylstra Reference Zylstra1992). Considering that virtually all evolved organs and tissues in living organisms are organized as structural hierarchies (Ingber Reference Ingber2006), the emergence of complex organisms and their resulting ecological and social interactions cannot be mechanically reduced to their basic subcomponents (Levin Reference Levin1998; Reference Levin2000; Oyama Reference Oyama1985/2000; Wu Reference Wu1999). A progressive step forward would be to generate a model that encompasses different hierarchal and systems perspectives. Unfortunately, the Darwin machine concept does not completely encapsulate the processes of development during ontogeny that led to the evolution of different scalar levels of selection over phylogeny.
EP and neo-Darwinian theorists have focused so heavily on self-interested genetic propagation that, traditionally, evolution has been synonymous with competitive interactions. Competition resulting in selection is a major aspect of the evolutionary process; however, the emergence of complex organisms requires that interactions must also be integrative and constructive (Nowak et al. Reference Nowak, Sigmund and Leibowitz2000). The tenets of classical Darwinism – variation, selection, heritability – do not include aspects of cooperation and collaboration, fundamental mechanisms of biological and social diversity. Whereas the authors address its application in immune system functioning and change at the level of small groups, a Darwin machine concept inherently ignores cooperation as a fundamental aspect to all living systems.
Cooperation among subunits within a system generates a new level of selection by facilitating a self-organizing process, allowing for higher order and more complex structures to be maintained (Jain & Krishna Reference Jain and Krishna2001; Michod & Roze Reference Michod, Roze and Nehaniv1999). Basic chemical reactions, the building blocks of all living things, will naturally and spontaneously self-organize through cooperation (Stokely et al. Reference Stokely, Mazza, Stanley and Franzese2010). When cooperative pressure is able to override the competitive pressure among horizontally interacting units within a system, a new evolutionary level of selection can then be generated (Reeve & Keller Reference Reeve, Keller and Keller1999). From genes cooperating in genetic networks within genomes, organelles cooperating within eukaryotic cells, and cells cooperating to form multicellular organisms, to multicellular organisms cooperating to form cultures (Nowak Reference Nowak2006; for review, see West et al. Reference West, Griffin and Gardner2007), ultimately cooperation allows for the creation of new levels of organization through the integration of multiple contributors to a single function (Sirois et al. Reference Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Mareschal and Johnson2008). The opposing forces of competition and cooperation not only define the evolutionary history of living organisms but also define ontogenetic development, just as the generation of the human nervous system requires both cooperative and competitive processes (Edelman Reference Edelman2004; Edelman & Tononi Reference Edelman and Tononi2000).
The authors do an elegant job attempting to salvage traditional EP concepts; however, it may be beneficial in the long run to simply view traditional EP models as a historical remnant, such as Freudian psychology and radical behaviorism, primarily providing a sounding board for more accurate models. Unfortunately, EP models have not been able to fully reflect the intricate network of biology, ecology, and the multilevel interactions that generate living systems. Although the authors do address that humans develop within differing levels of social and cultural organization, the Darwin machine concept is too limiting in scope for a new science of intentional change. The standard social science model was simply a straw man used to bolster, and possibly sensationalize, a “new” field in psychology.