More Abuse of Evolution to Explain Social Behavior

During a friendly discussion with a a friend with whom I attended college a while ago, I argued that it can be stated unequivocally that the degree of scientific literacy on the part of the public has risen remarkably both in the place of my residence and in world populations at large. Implicit in my argument was that the sheer number of articles being published that address scientific principles has most definitely raised the appreciation of science.

Looking through this article by dDan Slater in the NYT and an early blog post here leads me to consider that I may have made my point with more confidence than is warranted. To begin with, the NYT article states that while some evidence for evolution is sound, it is often wound together with other theories to explain human behavior in ways that are not defensible. As the story states, Charles Darwin too extrapolated from evolution to explain the reproductive choices of male and female human beings in ways that are not defensible and amount to pure speculation. As Slater argues, behavioral scientists pick up sensible but unproven hypothesis and assumptions then proceed to gather evidence as proof of those assumptions. As he continues, many scientists have beguin to dispute the theories that have emerged from speculation dressed up as science.

This situation is highlighted by the blog post that I refer to in the preceding paragraph. Back then, I was arguing that many students of economicssts are dressing up their theories in evolutionary language. tThere is very little evidence that evolution supplied humanity with pre-programmed behavior and it is time for a push-back against these interesting hypotheses and they must headers to article be called out for what they are- entertaining guesses.   

The Evolution of the Chameleon

A few hours ago, I was seated at a garden restaurant when I noticed a slow moving creature that was perfectly camouflaged against a brownish tree trunk. My stream of thoughts led me to try and trace its slow movement, where one limb moves tentatively forward and then followed by another as it rolled down that tree trunk. Putting on my quasi-scientific thinking cap, I mused, "So this creature is supposed to be perfectly adapted to its environment?"

This question continued to turn in my mind as I tried to figure out what is the evolutionary advantage of moving so slowly in an area with shrubs. It is perfectly understandable that the ability to change color is useful for evading predators and insect prey by being undetectable. On the other hand, once it is detected, its tentative steps condemn it to very easy seizure by a bird or other animal that may feed on it. A straight answer may be that the tentative movements are part of its survival because it is compensated for by a very long, sticky and quick tongue that allows it to capture insects while it is yet undetected.

I am not sure how all this evolutionary advantages fit together for this ugly but amazing creature. I think that there is no perfect answer because it appears that often in the quest to justify the valid scientific process of evolution, we first detect the facts and thereafter adopt a narrative with an evolutionary rationale.

Picture Available at: www.ilovechameleons.com        

Another Reason not to Buy Expensive Sneakers

I have run a city marathon in the tropics on two consecutive occasions a couple of years ago and learnt that running the marathon is an extremely painful endurance event. Because I ran as a full amateur and with less than a week of training, I was quite pleased to have done it in time slightly less than four hours. Another of the major mistakes that I and my brother made was to purchase moderately costly running shoes just before the race day. Needless to mention, the shoes were comfortable for the first ten kilometres and a real pain for the rest of the race. Blisters are common for professional runners too but to have lost toe nails is evidence of that imprudence because there are things even the best running shoes would not give.

Karen Knee's book review looks at states the argument by the author that running unshod is the perfect way to run comfortably over distances while avoiding injury. Christopher McDougal writes in the book that he took up running years back and over time came to realize that the Tarahumara are able to maintain pace and cover long distances not only because of their innate ability but because they run in flat rubber sandals. Other biological evidence show that the human species is specifically engineered for long distance running because of the ability to dissipate heat through sweat and that the pace of breathing is also independent of stride. In addition, it states that the upright posture is complimented with tendons which enable the human head to stay upright while running.

The book reviewer has made the book's arguments really well and I find the thesis really fascinating. Still, when I run the marathon again in October of this year, I will recall all this but remember that running shoes can still be very comfortable even if unnatural and predisposing towards injury. In the long run, I still will prefer running shoes. Are Nike's sports shoes engineers listening?

Abusing Evolution to Explain Economic Behavior

As a student of economics, I have had no problem in admitting the necessary principal theories in explaining a number of phenomena at hand. Indeed, the rise of behavioural economics on the one side and the fact that data is often unavailable in sufficient amount and of high quality to test general assumptions is a fact that a good number of professional economists would concede. Despite this necessary concession, I remain skeptical of the tendency to ascribe to evolutionary theory certain aspects of human economic and social behavior.

In this thoroughly enjoyable piece in Slate magazine, Tim Harford asks why there is a strong human tendency to resist price rises even when the fundamentals of supply and demand would make that price hike quite rational behavior. He cites the fact that manufacturers are loathe to raise prices for items such as PlayStations and X-box 360s in spite of the fact that such pricing action would equalize demand and supply and increase profits. I am fully agreed with him until he resorts to using purported behavioral instincts emerging from early evolution of the human species.

That evolution has real scientific backing cannot be gainsaid but I think that the evidence that it came with pre-programmed behaviour is not supported by science today. As Tim Harford clearly writes, the clever theories given for the existence of this odd behavior is unconvincing. This blogger finds the evolutionary explanation unconvincing too. Biology is a powerful instrument for explaining human behavior but that is no reason to use intuition to attempt explanations for economic behaviour.