This July I attended the International Society for Human Ethology Summer Institute in Orono, ME. Besides meeting some extraordinary people (and having an amazing time!), I also discovered how important ethology is for evolution.

At the heart of ethology is observation. Some of the most important ideas in evolution were found by ethologists or evolutionary scientists using ethological methodology.  Darwin himself began his inquiries into natural selection by observing animals, the most famous being finches. Human ethologists generally focus on observing human behavior using methodology from biology and behavioral sciences.

At the ISHE summer institute I saw amazing research done by scientists in many different fields like Elizabeth Oberzaucher, Daniel Povinelli, Karl Grammer and Glenn Weisfeld, just to name a few.  The most important thing I learned from this institute was that observing animal behavior (human or other animals) could lead to many discoveries not found inside a laboratory.

So, what does this have to do with evolution in higher education? Quite simply, we should encourage our students to become human ethologists and observe the world around them. In your next course, think of how easy it would be to assign students to go out in the real world and observe human behavior. They could observe facial expressions, interactions between people at bars or coffee shops, or local customs (which many colleges have).  Instruct students how to take field notes and then have students report back about the behavior, describing the behavior in detail.

There is something to be said for learning how to observe, learning what details to pay attention to, how to not interfere with the targets, and looking at the things one looks at everyday in a new light.  Most students learn about research in evolutionary psychology by handing out questionnaires, or conducting experiments, but very few get the opportunity to do observational research. For your assignment, you might ask students to apply evolutionary theory to their observations, but really just the act of observing will help students not only in their evolutionary careers, but also in their daily lives.

For some interesting reads on human ethology I suggest:

Human Ethology (2007) by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

The Ethological Approach to the Study of Human Behavior by Zdenek Klein (2000) available at: http://www.nel.edu/21_6/NEL21062000X001_Klein_.pdf

New Aspects of Human Ethology (Recent Advances in Phytochemistry) (1997) Editors: Klaus Atzwanger, Karl Grammer, Katrin Schäfer and Alain Schmitt.

Kramare and Treichler (1996): “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

Geher (2009): “Evolutionary psychology is the radical notion that human behavior is part of the natural world.”

There is no reason on earth to believe that these two “radical” notions are irreconcilable.

I am glad to say that an important and growing intellectual movement is in the works. The Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society (FEPS) was borne of discussions at the most recent meeting of the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society (NEEPS) in Oswego, New York. Apparently, the NEEPS meetings are about more than intensive academic sessions, world-class keynote speakers, whiffle ball, and parties on the beach.

Believe it or not, most evolutionary psychologists I know are exceptionally “progressive” in their politics. I quote the word “progressive,” as I feel bad for folks who are not considered “progressive” by those who are self-proclaimed in their “progressivity” – seems like kind of a bad thing to be “non-progressive.” In fact, “non-progressive” almost sounds fully synonymous with “stupid.” But I digress.

“Progressive” means more than “secular democrat” or “liberal.” The moniker has a clear connotation regarding action. Those who consider themselves “progressive,” as far as I can tell, proactively work to uphold various important social values. Someone who is “progressive” not only is against racism, sexism, and unjust wars that kill thousands – he or she also has a sense of obligation to shape the world to be less racist, sexist, and unjust.

Evolutionary psychology has proven to be extremely controversial – often, as I’ve stated in prior work (Geher, 2006), perceived as some sort of conservative conspiracy designed to keep the gender-based status quo. This portrait of evolutionary psychology is inherently “non-progressive.”

In fact, evolutionary psychology is, at its core, an approach to understanding human behavior using evolutionary theory – arguably the single-most influential theory that has existed in the history of science – as a guide. The idea of understanding human behavior in light of evolutionary forces is not inherently conservative, sexist, or evil – not even close. Trying to understand who we are by employing the most powerful theory that exists within the life sciences actually seems pretty smart when you think about it.

A recent examination of the political attitudes of psychologists who label themselves as “evolutionary psychologists” versus other psychologists tells an interesting story. In an article published in Human Nature in 2007, Josh Tybur, Geoffrey Miller, and Steve Gangestad reported that evolutionary psychologists are every bit as left-leaning and “progressive” as non-evolutionary psychologists – being just as likely to affiliate with the democratic party – and being no more likely to have voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. While folks from the conservative right are likely not at all surprised by these data (after all, isn’t that whole theory of evolution an anti-religious New York liberal thing?), I bet “progressive” folks on the far left may well be.

As David Sloan Wilson (2009) tells us, evolutionary psychologists need to reclaim our field. The term “evolutionary psychology” has often been yoked with very specific approaches to human behavior – and has partly become embroiled in politics as a result. While I don’t think any of these approaches is inherently sexist, it will definitely serve future scholars well to take a more open approach to understanding how evolution underlies human behavior. According to David – with whom I agree strongly on this issue – evolutionary psychologists would benefit from being open to non-modularist approaches that take seriously the fact of cultural evolution.

When Rosemarie Chang, EvoS websmaster, came to me during the NEEPS conference to ask if I’d be up for joining a new organization called FEPS, I was immediately on board. So were many attendees at NEEPS 09. It turns out that evolutionary psychologists are not only typically liberal and feminist in their politics – they’re also “progressive” – and the birth of FEPS demonstrates this point strongly.

What will come of FEPS? I’m not sure. But given the intellectual strength of folks who are primarily responsible for forming this new society – including Alice Andrews, Rebecca Burch, Rosemarie Chang, Maryanne Fisher, Leslie Heywood, Dan Kruger, Kaja Perina, Sarah Strout, and many others – I have little doubt that great things are to follow.

Can insights from evolutionary psychology help reduce unfair sexist policies and actions? Can insights from evolutionary psychology help lead to a world that empowers people regardless of gender? Can my field of evolutionary psychology make my daughter Megan’s world a better and brighter place? You know what I think.

The first official meeting of FEPS will take place as something of a pre-conference to the 2010 meeting of NEEPS – slated to likely take place where NEEPS was born in 2007 – my home campus at SUNY New Paltz. Check the NEEPS website (neepsociety.com) for details. Hope to see you there.

Oh – and here’s the URL for the FEPS facebook group – tell your friends:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122502515165*

References

Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! … and here’s why … Psihologijske Teme (Psychological Topics); Special Issue on Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 181-202.

Kramare, C., & Treichler, P. A. (1996).  A Feminist Dictionary. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Tybur, J. M., Miller, G. F., & Gangestad, S. W. (2007). Testing the controversy: An empirical examination of adaptationists’ attitudes towards politics and science. Human Nature, 18, 313-328.

Wilson, D. (2009). Evolutionary psychology and the public media: Rekindling the romance. Huffington Post Blogs.

* must be approved by the group administrator, Rosemarie Chang, to join. Contact Rosemarie at: evostudies@gmail.com

I recently had what I like to call my ‘gay week.’ It started on a Friday when I went to attend Gay Pride at Faneuil Hall in Boston, followed by seeing Kathy Griffin (a comedian loved by gays). The following Wednesday I went to see the Indigo Girls (an indie rock group made up of two lesbians, Emily and Amy), and finished it off with my friend’s gay support meeting on the next Friday. I went to the meeting to report on the results of the data I had collected from the gay men in that group about a year before. Although there are many things different about the gay community, one of the most striking differences I noticed at all these different venues was the openness with which the gay community discusses sex.

As teachers of evolution, one of the most common and most sensitive topics we discuss is sex. After seeing how open the gay community is when talking about sex, I wondered how we could make our students more open to talking and thinking about sex. The following are some suggestions I have come up with, but I would encourage other teachers to post more suggestions as well.

1. Create an open atmosphere.  I think as teachers, we all strive to have a welcome and open atmosphere, where students feel free to discuss their opinions openly.  However, when we begin to discuss more sensitive topics, like sex, I think we realize just how tenuous this open atmosphere is. Some common suggestions include talking with students casually before class begins (this means actually entering the classroom 10 minutes before class), calling students by their first names and allowing students to call you by your first name, and encouraging students when they share their opinions, thoughts, and questions by maintaining eye contact and thanking students for their participation.
2. Don’t create unnecessary tension. Sometimes we forget that students do always like to share about their lives, especially their sex lives, so I think it best to avoid ‘poll’ type questions like “How many of you have been cheated on, or cheated on someone else.” A better way to get this information is to use index cards, where students can answer or ask questions of a sensitive nature anonymously, and it allows you to edit student answers and questions without students knowing by just passing over an index card.
3. Start off slow. I wouldn’t recommend jumping in with the shape of the human penis, or menstrual cycle differences instead start with the innocuous and fun topics of attraction or jealousy, so students have a chance to get comfortable talking about some mild topics before the more personal topics arise.
4. Be professional, but not too professional. Unfortunately, for men this seems to be an important point. I have had many students characterize male professors as ‘dirty old men’ because of the way they joked about sex. I think students like somewhat of a professional tone when talking about sex to help them feel comfortable, but they also enjoy some humor too. For example, when I discuss some of the early theories on kamikaze sperm, I act out the sperms with silly voices. The students love seeing me make a fool of myself.
5. Be honest and open. Students appreciate when you tell them about being uncomfortable. For example, I tell my students about a conference where I saw Becky Burch discuss the shape of a male penis. I have to admit I was mortified at first, seeing the videos of dildos penetrating condoms, but interested as well. I use this as a way to help the students realize that it is okay to be embarrassed and okay to be interested in sex.

I think it is very important for students of psychology, and particularly evolutionary psychology, to be able to talk about and be knowledgeable about sex. As educators, the responsibility for making these students comfortable is on our shoulders.  I would love to hear what other suggestions you have for creating an atmosphere conducive to sensitive discussions, whether related to sex or not.

Anyone who has been to the Northeast is likely familiar with the miniature Dunkin Donuts convection the donut hole, aka the Munchkin. After an unsuccessful online search, I called headquarters to learn more about the history of this sweet, only to find them quite silent on the issue. What follows is based on hopeful speculation for the sake of an example of spandrel and exaptation in evolutionary theory.

Gould and Lewontin (1979) came up with the terms spandrel and exaptation to provide an explanation for the origins of heritable traits that weren’t initially adaptations. An adaptation begins as a trait that is selected for a particular function that it serves the carrier. A spandrel is a leftover of an adaptation. It has no function and is not subject to natural selection. However, if that spandrel is co-opted for a particular function, it is considered an exaptation – and then can actually become subject to selection. Though it didn’t begin as a functional product, in the end it comes to be. For example, bird feathers were initially an adaptation for thermoregulation, and later were co-opted, or exapted, for the function of flight. Flight in this case didn’t originate as an adaptation, but was co-opted from the spandrel.

The Munchkin illustrates the concept of exaptation well, though it requires a baker as “selector”, whereas natural selection operates with no selector. A doughnut in this example is a circular piece of dough with an empty circular middle. Imagine that the shape is created by making a round of dough, and then cutting out the middle piece, leaving you with the doughnut and some extra dough. Imagine further that the baker typically throws the middle piece aside as it serves no purpose. The middle piece here is a spandrel – it serves no function to the baker, but is rather a leftover portion of the functional dough – the doughnut.

However, the baker decides that those leftover pieces are too much of a waste. She decides to roll them into a ball and sell them separately from the doughnuts. She gives them a name, Munchkin, and markets them to dieters, children, and dog-owners for treats, and finds that these formerly useless pieces are now bringing in money. They have been co-opted for the function of money making, and therefore the Munchkin is an exaptation. Now she finds them so popular, the baker is creating different flavors, and fun boxes in which to sell the doughnut holes.

What originated as a mere by-product of the doughnut has now come to serve the function of a profitable treat. Though the Munchkin, as an exaptation, will be subject to selection pressures. Perhaps customers will prefer chocolate rather than plain Munchkins, resulting in more chocolate Munchkins being made. Or perhaps the mere size of the Munchkin will allow it to find its way to more diverse environments than the doughnuts, resulting in more Munchkins being made than doughnuts. Whatever the end result, the Munchkin shows that while some features are not initially subject to selection pressures, if they come to serve a function, someday they just may be.

[Postscript: I hope Stephen J. Gould had a sense of humor, otherwise he is figuratively rolling in his grave at my Just-So Munchkin story.]

Further Reading:

Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53(5), 533-548.

Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 205(1161), 591-598.