"Cashdan puts it this way: which body type men prefer 'should depend on the degree to which they want their mates to be strong, tough, economically successful and politically competitive.'
"Depend on? The very phrase is anathema to the dogma of a universal human nature. But it is the essence of an emerging, competing field. Called behavioral ecology, it starts from the premise that social and environmental forces select for various behaviors that optimize people's fitness in a given environment. Different environment, different behaviors--and different human 'natures.'"
The article reports a really interesting integration of evolutionary pressures on human thinking and social constraints on human behavior. Well worth a read.
The article really do say that evolutionary biologists (here evol psychologists) don't think evolution can build a function into the brain that modifies behavior after environment...
Which should either be a straw man argument or that the journalist has garbled some serious argument.
Edit: In the last evolution article from the author, she fell over her own feet... explains a bit.
The article really do say that evolutionary biologists (here evol psychologists) don't think evolution can build a function into the brain that modifies behavior after environment.
I'd like to respectfully request that you restate that sentence with clearer grammar.
For what is mainstream in evolutionary psychology, one reasonable source is
"Depend on? The very phrase is anathema to the dogma of a universal human nature. But it is the essence of an emerging, competing field. Called behavioral ecology, it starts from the premise that social and environmental forces select for various behaviors that optimize people's fitness in a given environment. Different environment, different behaviors--and different human 'natures.'"
The article reports a really interesting integration of evolutionary pressures on human thinking and social constraints on human behavior. Well worth a read.