Boy Scouts, Giant Sea Turtles, and the Evolution of Other-Oriented Behavior

In writing about why EvoS is such an outstanding academic program, David Wilson (2007) takes on three major misconceptions about evolution. These being that it is:
1. overly scientific and, thus, beyond comprehension for many people.
2. somehow pernicious and evil, to be used for abhorrent social agendas.
3. not relevant to one’s everyday life.

In this post, I address this third point.

As an evolutionist, I’m woefully beyond help. I can’t help but see everything in my world in terms of evolutionary principles. At a Board of Education meeting recently, I saw parents speaking up for the future of their children – clearly taking steps to ensure the success of their progeny. On a recent hike in the Gunks, I saw pockets of forest filled with giant hemlocks – taking over an ecological niche along a stream that would otherwise belong to several varieties of oaks that typify the forest. All summer long, as the corn and sunflowers disappeared – somewhat gradually – in my garden, an opulent groundhog implemented an evolutionarily advantageous strategy for surviving – quite well, in fact. I pulled a single pumpkin from the garden this year … but I digress …

While my own experience seeing evolution everywhere may be somewhat pronounced, I don’t think it’s unique. EvoS students regularly report having this same perspective applied to questions and problems across life domains. This fact may well be the core secret of the success of EvoS programs, now proliferating around the world like groundhogs on a pumpkin farm.

As a parent, I see evolution every time I think about either of my kids. Megan, 8, and Andrew, 5, are just the thrill of my life – and spending time with them and watching them grow genuinely comprise the primary focus of my attention at this life stage. And taking an evolutionary approach really adds to my understanding of who they are and why they do what they do.

Recently, I’ve become somewhat (yes, only somewhat!) intrigued by religious practices. As a highly secular, evolutionist, atheist who was not bar mitzvahed because I came from a lineage of skeptics, I’m not exactly the most religious person you might know. But my training as an evolutionist tells me that there’s something to religion. While evolutionarily informed theories of religion vary a good bit, I’ve become particularly interested in David Wilson’s (2007) conception of religion as having both a vertical dimension (dealing with the relationship between people and the supernatural) and a horizontal dimension (which pertains to how people interact with others – and the nature of social structures that encourage or discourage certain social behaviors).

In his discussion of these two dimensions of religion, Wilson makes the point that the horizontal level – comprised of a religion’s rules – is all about social interactions and social control – ultimately encouraging behaviors that promote among-group selection at a cost to within-group selection. Briefly, such social controls encourage people to be nice to others at a cost to themselves.

And religion after religion, in fact, has a good bit of this kind of “self-sacrifice for the broader group” thing going on. Jesus dying on the cross is likely the ultimate icon of this sort of other-oriented behavior – but it plays out throughout scripture in a host of religions that cut across typical geographical and cultural divides (Wilson, 2002).

Why religion, then? Why would it have evolved and come to typify our species. Successful religious groups, compared with less-successful groups, have been effective at getting their members to invest time and energy for the good of the group – at a cost to themselves. A group that does this kind of thing well will outcompete alternative groups – and come to proliferate any shared niche.

For Wilson, religion is deeply rooted in who we are – and the benefits it provided our ancestors were exactly the kind of benefits described here. Belonging to a successful religious group meant (a) that your group was likely to succeed and that (b) you and your family were likely to benefit accordingly. Group benefits trickle down to the individual.

From this perspective, then, humans have a long history of being indoctrinated into groups with several seemingly arbitrary hierarchies and social rules. These rules, traditionally framed in terms of specific religious principles, encourage group-oriented behavior and discourage individual-oriented behavior. The main lesson of such perspectives is self-sacrifice and putting the goals of the group above the goals of the individual.

I have to admit, I kind of like that! This is how I try to organize nearly all things I’m involved in. Known for its “help each other out” culture, I like to think that NEEPS is built on norms that parallel some of these fundamental features of religious organizations – encouraging group oriented behavior and discouraging selfish behavior. Maybe this is why NEEPS has been so successful.

I’ve become particularly interested in thinking about these parallels with religion with regard to raising my kids. At nearly six years old, Andrew is a positive force. He’s pretty much boy as boy can be – but he’s got a nice combination of softness, creativity, and humor to round him out. We love him. But I will say that he may not always engage in other-oriented behavior. And I’m starting to see that secular parents, such as Kathy and me, may need to take special steps given the evolution of other-oriented behavior. Religion has been the primary conduit for facilitating other-oriented behavior for generations of humans. We now are capable of having no religion. On one hand, this is great – we can think of ourselves as enlightened, and we feel we sort of “truly” understand questions such as what the universe is about and where we fit in it. That’s nice. But there may be a cost.

When it comes to fostering other-oriented behavior, religious parents have a leg up. They have the church, the preacher, the modeling of other-oriented behavior and, if that’s not enough, they have the Bible – filled with comments and parables that underscore the benefits of other-oriented behavior.

I think that secular parents may need to take specific and proactive actions to help their kids develop other-oriented ways.

Andrew started doing Boy Scouts this semester. Well, really, it’s “Tiger Scouts” – but you get the deal. He and a bunch of other 5 and 6-year old boys head to the basement of our local Catholic Church a few times a month. They stand in line. They sit in line. They are told to be quiet. They are asked to describe a situation in which they showed gratitude. They are asked to describe a situation in which they showed respect. They salute the American flag.

Yes, of course, a small part of me thinks this is almost like brainwashing! But Andrew seems to naturally connect with it – and I see a side of him in there that is very admirable. There’s not a lot of “I want this!”; “You took that from me!”; “Give me that!”; etc. Rather, there’s an implicit but powerful understanding that Andrew – and the others – will follow orders from the leaders. And you can quickly see the group benefits that will follow. Apparently, they have plans to build cars for an upcoming soap box derby. That’d be hard for one kid to do – not so hard for a well-organized group. They’re going to create a rocket and blast it into the air. Disciplined, other-oriented, respectful, behavior on the part of the kids will surely help make this happen.

Given the conspicuously non-religious nature of our household, I’m (tentatively!) seeing Tiger Scouts as a good thing for Andrew. To develop as moral beings, we need early life lessons in sacrificing oneself for the broader group or community. You don’t have to be religious to have your kids learn these lessons – but having them take part in long-standing, organized groups, such as the boy scouts – even if there may be some religious undertones – may help shape the kind of other-oriented patterns that will help make them solid and dependable citizens of the global community.

Speaking of the global community, I’m proud to say that Andrew is engaging in self-sacrificing behavior right now. His birthday party is coming up (November 1). Given my effort to encourage other-oriented behavior – along with my effort to reduce clutter, I’ll admit – I’ve proposed to Andrew that we could ask his friends to not bring presents but to, rather, consider donating money to a particular charity that is dear to Andrew’s Heart. Andrew recently visited the Loggerhead Marine Life Center in Juno Beach, FL, and he quickly indicated that he wanted this center to be the target of any such donation efforts. The Center brings in and rehabilitates various sea turtles that have been injured by the fishing or boating industries of Florida. We visit the Center regularly and Andrew loves it there. (To donate, go to marinelife.org!)

I’m thinking of this whole thing in evolutionary terms – teaching him at a young age to value outcomes that benefit the broader community and help others (turtles, in this case) while exerting a cost on himself (by not getting presents). Mind you, there are caveats – he will get presents from family members – and I have strong faith that between his birthday, Hanukkah, and Christmas, he’ll get his usual share of 500 or so presents that don’t fit in the house (slight exaggeration here!). But he is excited about the save the turtle campaign – and we’ve got to support that. When other-oriented behaviors meet positive emotions, things are good.

Shaping other-oriented orientations in kids is one of the main evolutionary hurdles faced by all humans. Religion likely can help – but if you’re a little creative and take advantage of community resources, there may even be room for secular parents to raise upstanding, dependable, and other-oriented leaders of tomorrow who care greatly about the broader global community.

Andrew, I’m proud of you! Happy Birthday my man!

References

Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin’s Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.

Making Sense of Biology

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky. (1973). The American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125-129.

“The great King of Kings

Hath in the tables of his law commanded

That thou shalt do no murder”

Shakespeare, Richard III, 1, 4.

      In this installment, I tackle a topic associated with a typically October theme, Halloween.   John Carpenter’s classic: Halloween (1978) begins with the murder of 17 year old Judith Meyers by her 6 year old younger brother Michael.  Fifteen years later Michael escapes and begins a murder spree in the small town of Haddonfield, Illinois.  In various sequels of Halloween we eventually learn that Michael Meyers is not truly human, but that his murderous desires and abilities are associated with supernatural evil.

 Myers, as a mythical figure, does not truly conform to his real world inspiration, the serial killer.  Neither does the media’s depiction of real serial killers conform to their actual behavior.  Elliot Leyton writes that the modern serial killer assumes the mantle once worn by “monsters, demons, ghouls, vampires, werewolves, and zombies¹.”  Leyton contrasts the romantic notion of fictional characters such as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, who is portrayed as intelligent, glamorous, cultivated, physically powerful, and sexually gifted with that of the reality of serial/multiple killers who are generally without intellectual and physical attainments.  Indeed what we know of psychotic killers indicates that they may be mentally incapable of developing planned killings (as portrayed by Thomas Harris in his Hannibal Lecter character.)  Zdzilaw Marchwicki, who became known as the “Vampire of Silesia” killed some 14 women in 1960’s Poland.  His victims were unknown to him and “targets of opportunity.” The lack of connection to his victims explained why he was difficult to catch.  It had nothing to do with any superior intelligence or planning.  He was eventually captured when he confessed after being brought in for a domestic violence charge².

 So what do we know about multiple or serial killers?  First, the answer to that question depends on how you define multiple or serial killer.  For example, while we may find contract murderers or state bureaucrats who engage in multiple murders reprehensible, they don’t really fall into the Michael Myers, Jack the Ripper, or Ted Bundy archetype.  The Halloween notion is of the murderer who kills for murder’s sake.  In the real world, multiple/serial killers cannot come back for sequel after sequel.  Thus their modus operandi can be distinguished between those who decide to kill many people all at once; with no hope of survival themselves (e.g. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) or serial murders as the Vampire of Silesia who would have kept killing women if he had never been in a position to confess.  Despite these differences in “motivation” evolutionary theory may provide us with important insights into these behaviors.

 Homicides are rare and the homicides of the sort I wish discuss are even rarer.  In 2002, the rate of homicide in the United States was 5.6 per 100,000 persons³. The vast majority of these murders are associated with social and cultural factors, e.g. crime, poverty.  However, even in these categories there is evidence of evolutionary factors at play, such as the gender disparity.  

 Thus most people murdered are male, but they are murdered mainly by other males (4328/4931 = 0.87) and of the females murdered, most of them are murdered by males (1778/1980 = 0.90.) Buss discusses this gender disparity in the light of two potential hypotheses: “the slip-up hypothesis” and the “homicide module hypothesis⁴.”  In both of these scenarios, murder is an “adaptive strategy” that might be utilized in specific circumstances.  These explanations may do more to explain more about killing in general (whether it is that which is legal or illegal) than they do to explain the serial or multiple killer.  Despite this fact, the gender disparity holds up within the confines of the serial murderer as well.

Serial killer murders probably make up no more than 1% of all murders.  A specific sort of murder that may fall into the category associated with serial killers is sexual homicide.  This is estimated at about 1% and 4% prevalence amongst all murders in the United States and Canada respectively⁵. Sexual homicides may provide us with useful information to explain serial murders in general (realizing that not all serial murderers engage in sexual homicide.)  The evidence suggests that sexual murderers often fall into the behavioral category known as psychopathy.  Psychopaths are mainly male, and show callous, manipulative, superficial, and violent interpersonal style⁶.  One study has shown that sexual homicide offenders have elevated levels of psychopathic traits relative to other offenders.  In addition, these offenders show an even greater level of violence and sadism in the commission of these crimes.  The level of sadism and violence exhibited indicates that they are deriving both sexual and general pleasure during the commission of these acts⁷.

If some serial killers are psychopaths, then how do evolutionary mechanisms explain their existence?  Also what of the serial/multiple killers that do not fall into this category?  There are several views of psychopathy.  Some suggest that the psychopath is just an extreme version of “normal” behavior.  Under this hypothesis, these individuals appear, solely by chance.  Another hypothesis is that psychopathic behavior is an adaptive strategy.  This view holds that the psychopath is engaging in an “r-selection” and cheater type strategy that will increase their reproduction, often at the expense of society at large.  Clearly by this model, the psychopathic player strategy can only be effective to increase fitness if these players remain at low frequency.  This notion suffers from a number of difficulties.  Not the least of which is that this strategy guarantees that the genes that engender it will always be rare.  Under this scenario such genes can easily be lost in populations due to genetic drift.  There is also the problem that the r- and K-selection hypothesis has been demonstrated not to be a legitimate dichotomy, especially in humans⁸. Finally, some theories suggest that psychopaths result from failures in brain modules that were selected for adaptive reasons, such as theory of mind and superconsciousness.  Theory of mind involves the ability of humans to comprehend and feel the state of mind of other humans.  This was thought to be a requirement of increased social living and complexity of modern humans.  One of the largest evidences of the existence of theory of mind was the recent discovery of mirror neurons.  These actually allow our brains to conceive of and feel the states of other persons, without actually performing the task in question ourselves⁹.  Studies have shown that in some aspects of theory of mind abilities that psychopaths underperform, while in others they are no different from non-psychopathic individuals.  It is argued that these results are not fatal to the theory of mind explanation, especially if psychopaths are capable of “understanding” the emotions of others, but not actually feeling them in a way that prevents their manipulative actions.  In other words, this ability may actually help them be even more effective as “cheaters” in society.

 My colleague, Michael Rose advances the idea that psychopaths (or sociopaths) result from a failure of another sort of brain module (superconsciousness.)  Superconsciousness when properly functioning allows individuals to calculate that costs of their behaviors relative to their individual fitness in various social circumstances.  Again, since all complex traits are influenced by genetic variation, some individuals inherit defective modules.  He suggests that since psychopathy can be produced by brain injuries or disease and that these occur in specific portions of the brain, that therefore this behavior results from poor functioning (as opposed to being an adaptive strategy¹⁰.)  This observation is also consistent with the fact that other developmental and personality disorders can produce individuals who are serial murderers (e.g. schizophrenia, as in the case of David Berkowitz, Son of Sam¹¹.)

Finally, what of the serial or multiple killers that seem to not be suffering from any diagnosable mental illness? Leyton discusses these in his Hunting Humans.  Leyton suggests that the modern American multiple killer is not suffering insanity or delusions.  The vast majority of these individuals are of European American descent and from the working or lower middle class.  They display an incredible class-consciousness and a need to punish society for their inability to move up its social ladder.  In his model, Ted Bundy murdered the very upper middle class women that he coveted, but was unable to have.  His acts were designed to wreak vengeance on that sector of society for denying him his rightful status.  However, Leyton fails to realize that the “need” that males have to achieve social status is something that is well embraced by evolutionary theory.  If indeed, our mate preferences are evolved and these preferences operate through our various behavioral mechanisms, any male that does not fall into the preferred category could potentially exhibit pathological behavior.  Indeed, this could explain why much of the violence in human societies occurs both to maintain the social hierarchy of some males over others, and by those who are subordinated to break out of their social oppression.

Indeed, while this month’s theme is the reality of the serial and multiple murderer, such individuals have little influence on the character of human society.  It is precisely their rarity that captures our attention and makes them the stuff of our nightmares.  If we really think about our social dynamics, and its impacts on life and death, we should be far more concerned about those highly functional people whose impacts on others are homicidal.  While we should be wary of the Gacy’s, Berkowitz’s, and Marchwicki’s amongst us, they will never kill as many in their careers, as our social inequalities do to the innocent each day.  Is this what our King of King’s really meant when he commanded: “Do no murder?”

Notes and References

1. Leyton, E., Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer, (New York, NY: Carroll and Graft Publishers), 2001.
2. Ibid, pp. 43 – 53.
3. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2002: Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DD: U.S. Government Printing Office.)
4. Buss, D.M., Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of Mind, (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon), 1999.
5. Roberts, J.V. and Grossman, M.G, Sexual homicide in Canada: A descriptive analysis, Annals of Sex Research, 6: 5-25, 1993.
6. Kinner, S., Psychopathy as an adaptation: Implications for Society and Social Policy, in Bloom, R.W. and Dess, N, editors: Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates, (Westport, CN: Praeger Publishers), 2003.
7. Porter, S. et al, Characteristics of sexual homicides committed by psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders, Law and Human Behavior 27(5): 459-470, 2003.
8. Brune, M. and Brune-Cohrs, U, Theory of Mind—evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms, and psychopathology, Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews 30: 437-455, 2006.

1. Graves, J.L., What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies, and Rushton’s life history theory,   Anthropological Theory,2(2): 131-154, 2002.

10.  Rose, M.R., personnel communication, 2008.

11.  Firth, C.D., The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Schizophrenia, (Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum), 1992.