Download Evaluating Competing Theories

Summary of:
Mills, Michael E. (2008). Humans Nature and Nurture. Sex Differences: The Evolution, Prosimate
Mechanisms, and Cultural Variations of Sexually Dimorphic Adaptations.
Summary by Lindsay Chisam, Griffin Gosnell, and Erin Morrissey
For Dr. Mills' Psyc 310 class, Fall, 2008
In the past chapters, we have discussed male and female behavior in numerous forms. In chapter
8, we will take a more in depth approach to analyzing the sexually dimorphic behavior by examining the
nature versus nurture debate. We will also examine sex differences from an evolutionary perspective.
Nature vs. nurture in the social sciences
The nature verses nurture debate has been a long time controversy. Many scientists devote all of
their careers to study this dilemma in hopes to give some insight on the origin of the human condition.
Biological determinists believe that biology is the leading cause of human behavior. They see no
understanding of cultural or social causality in the development of human reasoning. On the other hand,
cultural determinists seek to steer away from the nurture perspective and focus on nature being the sole
explanation for human behavior. Finally, a third party has been introduced called interactionism. This
states that a combination of nature and nurture results in the development of our human conduct.
Interactionism is the only true solution in the complex dispute of nature verses nurture.
The controversy in historical perspective
Although the nature versus nurture debate seems primarily scientific, politics was soon introduced
and the argument was shifted in a dangerous direction. Political philosophies exploited the nature verses
nurture debate in order to further justify their convictions of social hierarchy.
The naturalistic fallacy, which we have addressed in earlier chapters, is the assumption that “what is
natural is good”. This theory is not correct according to evolutionary scientists; however, political
philosophers utilized this fallacy to implement a new evolutionary process. Social Darwinism called for
“the survival of the fittest” in order to further advance society. Social Darwinism did not aid those who
were considered weak or ill because they would not benefit society. Eugenics was another philosophy that
used the naturallisitc fallacy to prove that artificial selection was the only way to further human nature.
By selectively breeding, a superior race could eventually result.
Cultural materialism and Margaret Mead
Margaret Mede, a graduate student of Franz Boas was in the midst of her educational career when
the nature vs. nurture debit was at its height. To help Boas gather empirical data to establish evidence on
cultural anthropology, Mead traveled to the island of Polynesia to study the natives of the American
Samoa. The question at hand was to what extent was youth rebellion and emotional turmoil evident in the
young Samoan girls. After Meads observations, she returned to New York and wrote, “The Coming of
Age in Samoa.” Mede described the young Samoan girls as having a culture free of adolescent troubles.
She also found that the Samoan adolescent girls practiced promiscuous sex and distributed many sexual
behaviors to males. Mead pushed the idea that biology had nothing to do with the adolescent rebellion,
leaving only culture to explain her findings, especially when comparing her findings to those found in
Western cultures.
Margaret Mead also examined three tribes in the New Guinea and their gender roles. She reported
that in the Arapesh tribe, males and females both acted feminine, in mild parental ways. In the
Mundugumor tribe, men and women acted like males and were more violent and aggressive. In the
Tchambuli tribe, the sex roles were reversed. Mead concluded from her results that the personality traits
that we have called masculine or feminine favor the strength of social conditioning. She argued that
All graphs from Chapter 8 from Dr. Michael Mills’ textbook
socialization caused sex differences and that gender inequalities also must have been a result of
socialization. Meads conclusions at the time were highly praised; However, over time native Samoans and
other professionals started to realize that her conclusions were flawed and that most of her conclusions
were based on lies told to her by the Samoans and other weak evidence. All three of her conclusions on
the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli were faulty. Mead tended to weigh too much of her research
on little evidence while neglecting to see the things that were alike in the cultures. Many do not accept her
research now, but her research is still used to support cultural determinism. One conclusion that can be
drawn from her research is that gender roles are not predetermined.
“Biophobia” in the Social Sciences
Scientists sparked a revival for studying biology and sex differences in the 1980’s. Any scientists
examining biological and evolutionary influences on gender were named “biophobic”. Any studies
relating to sex differences have been called “sexist” or “reductionistic.” Scientific societies took it upon
themselves to conclude what is “scientifically correct.” E.O. Wilson’s book Sociobiology caused many of
these societies to claim that her theories allow for a social and cultural hierarchy. These societies also
criticized Freeman’s refutation of Mead’s Samoan work. Freeman responded to the critics by stating,
“…the scientific truth is something that cannot be settled politically—it’s something that depends on
evidence.” Those who agreed with Freeman decided that these societies that vote on what is
“scientifically correct” might only being doing so because of some misunderstanding they might have.
The chart below explains some of the possible misunderstandings and well as solutions to these
dilemmas.
Potential Misunderstandings
Possible Solutions
Naive acceptance of the naturalistic fallacy.
Identify and dismantle the false idea that what is
"natural" is necessarily "good."
Erroneous belief that natural selection always
produces biological and social progress.
An understanding that evolution is blind to any future
goals, and does not necessarily result in "progress."
Unrealistic belief that social attempts to modify
negative behaviors will be futile if behavior is
biologically influenced.
An appreciation that an understanding of biological
causality may be used to make social interventions
more effective.
Unwarranted expectation that individuals may not
If behavior is "caused," it is irrelevant if the causes are
be held accountable for their behavior if that
social or biological. Understanding the causation of
behavior is determined to be biologically influenced. behavior may help develop interventions to prevent or
change undesirable behaviors.
Concern that within-sex variability will be ignored
or minimized when average sex differences are
reported. Social policy might be based on average
group sex differences.
Individuals should be assessed and appreciated as
individuals – not conceptualized as a miniature model
of of a group. Virtually the entire range of
temperaments and abilities is expressed in the
variability between individuals within each sex.
Standard Social Science Model (SSSM)
The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) revolves around the level of complexity of the
capacity for culture. This idea focuses on social constructionism and cultural determinism. Humans, as
infants, all have a general capacity for learning. As individuals, we are socialized by our culture and over
All graphs from Chapter 8 from Dr. Michael Mills’ textbook
time we begin to resemble those of our culture. Culture is then seen as what programs our brain and mind.
In the SSSM, psychology and cultural anthropology work together. Psychology studies the general and
anthropology studies the particular examples of learning and culture. In the two sexes there is identical
learning mechanisms and average group differences are due to socialization. Below is the general
Feedback Loop of the SSSM.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Integrated Model
The Integrated Model suggests that humans are not born with a blank slate, and that we are “pre-wired”
by natural selection. This idea makes learning possible and also can guide it in certain directions. The
integrated model suggests that both nature and nurture are important, also known as interactionism, and
focuses on psychological adaptations. The integrated model is seen evolving in two levels at the same
time. The first level comprised of mental mechanisms that evolve over time based on survival and
reproductive problems. The second level happens as mental mechanisms through our development
function to solve problems that are in our current environment. The integrated model suggests that when
we have hard decisions and solve problems, we reflect on our own personal experience and from those
that have come before us. Below is the general feedback loop of the Integrated Model.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
All graphs from Chapter 8 from Dr. Michael Mills’ textbook
Evaluating Competing Theories
When looking at the differences between the Integrated Model and the SSSM we can see that
each position holds very different sides when it comes to cultural or biological factors. For example,
someone who thinks that social factors are the only reason why males and females differ in height, they
would say that if men and women were treated the same throughout their lives in respect to diet and
exercise, the average height difference between the two sexes would not exist. Cross-cultural similarities
show a biological cause of height difference and other biological traits, because of the fact that all cultures
have similar male-female heights despite having different social factors.
Adaptationism and Human Sex Differences
Males and females are more similar than they are different, but the only way to find out the
behavioral and biological variations we have to look at the gender differences. Similar sex differences
can be seen across cultures and this shows that sex differences are at least somewhat biologically (nature)
derived. Gender differences, however, are not necessarily biologically derived, since the different
genders have adapted to their cultures. Things like wearing pink or blue have nothing to do with nature
and everything to do with nurture. Gender differences also change across ages and societies. If
something holds true cross-culturally, even if it seems societally based, it may be able to be classified as a
sex difference as opposed to a gender difference.
The differences between sexes can be attributed to gamete dimorphism, i.e. maximum
reproductive rate where females have a limited amount of children they can have whereas men can have
as many kids as they want. Many more of these differences can be seen in Mills’ “Battle of the Sexes”
table shown below.
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
All graphs from Chapter 8 from Dr. Michael Mills’ textbook