UCLA / UCSB Quarterly meeting
Saturday, Feb 22, 2003
The
Winter 2003 quarterly meeting of the UCSB Evolution, Mind, and Behavior group and
the UCLA Human Nature and Society group will be held Saturday, February 22,
2003 in the UCLA Anthropology Department Reading Room, 352 Haines Hall, UCLA.
Breakfast and lunch will be served.
This
quarter's mini-conference will include two sessions of presentations by
graduate students, followed by a faculty / student roundtable discussion on
"Evolutionary Perspectives on Punishment." All are welcome.
This
meeting is being organized by Clark Barrett and Joan Silk at UCLA. For further
questions or information, email Clark Barrett at barrett@anthro.ucla.edu
Schedule of events
9:30 – 10:30 Breakfast served in Haines 352
10:30 – 12:00 Student Presentations (I)
10:30 The evolution of humor and laughter
Tom Flamson,
UCLA Anthropology
Attempts to formulate a comprehensive evolutionary
explication of humor and laughter have largely failed. This is because
previous models assumed humor to be a monolithic phenomenon. However, the
broad range of forms and effects of humor cannot be explained purely as
derivatives of mechanisms serving a single function. Moreover, it is
important to consider possible functions of laughter prior to the evolution of
humor. I propose a theory of the evolution of laughter and humor that
systematizes the diverse forms in terms of differential exaptation.
Drawing on the growing consensus that laughter evolved in concert with tickling
as a means of testing and signaling trust in dyadic relationships, I show how
the introduction of symbolic thought and spoken language created rich
conditions to expand the available means of testing dyadic bonds through the
provocation of laughter beyond tickling. This in turn made possible the
exaptation of humor in the domains of coalition dynamics, mate selection, and
rank negotiation, as well as further elaboration of its dyadic affiliation
role, leading to a category of behavior that serves markedly different
functions in different contexts. I discuss the different processes
involved in the elaboration of humor and the variety of functions they now
serve. Results that distinguish this theory from other explanations are
presented.
11:00 Is there a biological basis to moral sentiments
relating to third party incest?
Debra
Lieberman, UCSB Psychology
The origin of morality and moral sentiments has been
a widely debated issue within the social sciences. One hypothesis concerning
the origin of moral sentiments suggests that ambient cultural norms dictate how
individuals will behave. This perspective assumes the existence of a
content-free learning device that automatically assimilates the surrounding
social norms regardless of the costs (or benefits) for any one particular
individual. In terms of the origin of moral
norms regarding incest, this translates into uniform sentiments within a given
culture; where variation exists, it can be attributed to patterns of the local
social environment such as familial and peer structures. An alternative hypothesis of moral norms
concerning incest is that, as Westermarck espoused, they are a reflection of an
evolved psychology containing specialized circuitry to recognize close kin and
decrease the probability of mating with them. On this view, moral sentiments
regarding incest are expected to fluctuate in systematic ways depending on the
extent to which an evolved inbreeding avoidance mechanism has been activated.
The purpose of this study is to empirically test these two alternative
hypotheses concerning the origin of moral sentiments regarding sibling incest.
11:30 Ovulatory Shifts in
Female Sexual Desire: A Functional Analysis
Elizabeth Pillsworth, UCLA
Anthropology
Women's reproductive biology imposes heavy obligatory
costs of parental investment, creating strong selective forces that would have
acted to shape female mating psychology around critical decisions such as the
choice of partner, the timing of sexual intercourse, and timing of
reproduction. We propose that female sexual desire has evolved as one
adaptation among several designed to regulate these decisions. We
hypothesize (1) an increase in desire as conception probability increases, but
only among women who are in committed long-term relationships; and (2) a shift
in the relative desire for a primary partner as compared with extra-pair partners
as ovulation approaches, dependent upon a woman's evaluation of her primary
partner's relative quality. We tested several predictions derived from
these hypotheses in a study of 173 women who were not taking oral
contraceptives. Results confirmed Hypothesis 1 -- an ovulatory peak in
sexual desire was found only for mated women; for unmated women, conception
probability and sexual desire were uncorrelated. Hypothesis 2 was partially
supported. Within mated women, as conception probability increased, in-pair
desired increased whereas extra-pair desires decreased. Trends in the
data suggested that a woman's satisfaction with and commitment to her
relationship were related to the likelihood that she would pursue an in-pair
conceptive strategy as compared with an extra-pair conceptive strategy.
12:00 – 1:30 Lunch served
in Haines 352
1:30 – 3:00 Student Presentations (II)
1:30 Visual
Attention in Ancestral Environments:
The Perceptual Priority of Animate Beings
2:00 Why direct reciprocity is common but
indirect reciprocity isn’t
Karthik Panchanathan,
UCLA Anthropology
In Sociobiology, E.O. Wilson called altruism
“the central theoretical problem of sociolobiolgy.” Although kin
selection and reciprocal altruism are sufficient to explain most altruistic
adaptations in the animal world, the human condition seems more complicated
and, as yet, not fully understood. Punishment seems to be an important
force in stabilizing group beneficial norms. However, there are many
social interactions in which punishment is not possible or, if possible, not
common. Recently, theorists have invoked indirect reciprocity to explain
this unexplained part of human sociality. Although theoretically
plausible, indirect reciprocity seems rare. I believe this has to do with
restrictive evolvability conditions. Even though indirect reciprocity may
not be part of human nature, the theoretical models shouldn’t be
discarded. They may be useful in understand other aspects of sociality
such as reputation and gossip.
2:30 Detecting and punishing free riders in a
collective action
Michael Price, UCSB Anthropology
I presented Ecuadorian Shuar subjects with a
hypothetical collective action scenario, in which participants were said to vary
in the extent to which they would benefit from the resources produced by the
collective action. Subjects were told that the collective action involved
four types of participants: (1) high-benefiting low-contributors (i.e., free
riders); (2) high-benefiting high-contributors; (3) low-benefiting
low-contributors; (4) low-benefiting high-contributors (i.e., altruists).
I presented subjects with various paired comparisons of the four kinds of
participants, and asked them which participant should be punished more (e.g., I
would compare the ‘free rider’ to the ‘altruist,’ and ask the subject who
should be punished more). Interestingly, only subjects who had had a
great deal of experience in collective actions consistently punished the free
rider, while subjects with little such experience tended to punish the altruist
(they apparently felt contemptuous of those who would work so hard for so
little profit). The rationality of free rider punishment seemed to depend
on the extent to which subjects themselves participated regularly in collective
actions. These results may imply that when people must regularly confront
and solve collective action problems, they employ the specific cognitive
programs that allow them to do so.
3:00 – 3:30 Coffee
3:30 – 5:30 Faculty / Student Roundtable Discussion
Topic: Evolutionary Perspectives on Punishment
5:30 Mini-conference
ends