Evolution once again solves everything, and 'hey, its not about you' comes full circle
A friend kindly tipped me off recently to the publication of a 2008 study on the evolutionary psychology of men versus women. The basic finding of the study? Men in the presence of other men of equal status and under pressure take more risks - women make equal decisions regardless of the context.
Several sociological studies have featured similar arguments, indicating increasing women in systems improves quality. For instance, a 1999 World Bank study posited that behavioral differences between genders make women more ‘honest’ in governance. In the financial world it would seem others have observed that more women in the sector might have mitigated some of the risk around the financial crisis.
My first reaction? Great - we’ve been saying this sh*t since day one.
But on more careful examination, I’m not sure the relationship is so binary. Some women do ‘act like men’ as ascribed by these characteristics. What is more, I find it difficult to believe that the difference is cognition around gender, and not the evolutionary impact of discrimination more broadly. In the case of women, this can mean what we consider to be traditional, socioeconomic ‘discrimination’, but also, if I understand what my science-minded friends have been kind enough to dumb down for me, that the onus of responsibility from a biological vantage point for reproduction seems to be on the women, to assess risk and be discriminating amongst risk-taking males. This discrimination is what is used to gauge fitness for survival.
I was reminded here of GG&S where Diamond argues that megafauna exposed to discrimination while evolving (as in Africa) were better able to discern risk and thus survive by avoiding humans that would otherwise hunt them, whereas megafauna that were isolated from humans (who later came over land/seas) in the Americas and Australia, had no ability to gauge risk from these new humans, never having experienced discrimination from them before. What happened to these giant American and Aussie animals? They died - obviously. Hence, you don’t see giant “wombat-like creatures often the size of a hippo or rhinoceros, but covered with fur” bathing in Lake Eyre. Whereas you do see scary shit like this in Kenya:
This for me raises some fundamental questions. My sense with zero scientific proof is that the quality of risk assessment is not just better in females, but would exist on a spectrum, and might be better adapted in groups with experience of discrimination. Are there other groups other than women having had such long-standing experiences? My guess is yes, and that as history evolves and specific groups are exposed to long-term (in a human history sense) discrimination, they will become more discriminating in their risks.
I am not sure what any of this means, except to wonder what the significance of this is in the future. Is it no coincidence that regions of the world that are the least exposed to discriminating factors also have the oldest populations and the lowest birth rates? Is the demographic transition an outcome of evolutionary psychology? The US, UK and most of Europe, Australia and East Asia are in stages four and five of the transition while places such as Afghanistan and much of sub-Saharan Africa are only at stage two. What is more, how does this impact our ideal trajectory for development? Is discrimination vital to evolution and if so, what is the target we are trying to hit between minimizing human suffering while continuing to perpetuate a group’s capacity to assess risk enough?
I am sure these questions have all been addressed by someone far more knowledgeable on human psychology and evolution than I am, however I would love to know more.
If nothing else, I have a sudden appreciation for Hemingway Complex as an evolutionary tool - those without the experience of discrimination, with no evolutionary utility, are self-selecting to die on mountain tops for the sake of human evolution. I am just saying….
