evolution

By working from the premises of Tooby & Cosmides' Integrated Causal Model, David Buss has done an outstanding job of making accessible not only the complex historical development of evolutionary psychology, but also inclusive fitness theory, specific evolutionary hypotheses and specific predictions derived from these hypotheses. Furthermore, Buss is comprehensive, balanced and precise when asserting theories and empirical substantiation from other major thinkers, viz., Trivers, Pinker, Bloom, Ridley, Symons, Williams, Mayr, Plomin, DeFries, etc.

In "Evolutionary Psychology -- The New Science of Mind," David M. Buss delivers a comprehensive, well-detailed, and illustrative presentation of evolved psychological mechanisms that have become universal across the human species while detailing the biology necessary to understand evolutionary theory and how it applies to human psychology. Organizationally-sound, the textbook reads like a novel, clearly providing theoretical and empirical information requisite for a fundamental understanding of Evolutionary Psychology. Buss' volume is essential reading for students of Evolutionary Psychology and very suitable reading for those of us interested in why we are the way we are. For more advanced readers, "The Adapted Mind," edited by Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby is an ideal choice.

Each day for twenty-something years I woke up to see reality as it was presented to me. I noticed many patterns in life that are hard not to notice -- such as the difference between men and women in how they approach sexual opportunities. Men will readily say yes, women firmly no. Why?

Evolution is such an intriguing and elegant theory on its approach to our current behavior. Boss's contention is that the present behaviors we see today in our modern era -- fear of snakes, high male sexual drive -- arose from our ancestors. Those who did not have such characteristics did not become our ancestors. Thus, over time, certain characteristics were more likely to be successful in the mating process, and those are the same characteristics we see today. Boss's insight required a lot of keen intellectual insight into many different hypothesis.

Some of these hypothesis seemed far-fetched at first. Who would think that there would be statistical differences in how maternal grandparents v. paternal grandparents relate to their grandchildren. There are, however. Maternal grandmothers have less risk in investing in a grandchild who is not biologically related since she is confident that her daughter is biologically hers, and she can be certain that her daughter's child is biologically related, too. The hypothesis that paternal grandfathers would be most distant -- since they have the most to lose -- turned out to be true. (Paternal grandfathers cannot be 100% certain that they fathered their son or daughter, and thus, they cannot be sure that that child's son or daughter is biologically related).

This is perhaps one of the most important contributions in scientific literature since Watson and Clark's published report on their findings of DNA.

Michael Gordon