Bart Du Laing

Amusing Ourselves to Death? Superstimuli and the Evolutionary Social Sciences

Some evolutionary psychologists claim that humans are good at creating superstimuli, and that many pleasure technologies are detrimental to our reproductive fitness. Most of the evolutionary psychology literature makes use of some version of Lorenz and Tinbergens largely embryonic conceptual framework to make sense of supernormal stimulation and bias exploitation in humans. However, the early ethological concept “superstimulus” was intimately connected to other erstwhile core ethological notions, such as the innate releasing mechanism, sign stimuli and the fixed action pattern, notions that nowadays have, for the most part, been discarded by ethologists. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we will reconnect the discussion of superstimuli in humans with more recent theoretical ethological literature on stimulus selection and supernormal stimulation. This will allow for a re-conceptualization of evolutionary psychologys formulation of (supernormal) stimulus selection in terms of domain-specificity and modularity. Second, we will argue that bias exploitation in a cultural species differs substantially from bias exploitation in non-cultural animals. We will explore several of those differences, and explicate why they put important constraints on the use of the superstimulus concept in the evolutionary social sciences.Some evolutionary psychologists claim that humans are good at creating superstimuli, and that many pleasure technologies are detrimental to our reproductive fitness. Most of the evolutionary psychological literature makes use of some version of Lorenz and Tinbergen’s largely embryonic conceptual framework to make sense of supernormal stimulation and bias exploitation in humans. However, the early ethological concept “superstimulus” was intimately connected to other erstwhile core ethological notions, such as the innate releasing mechanism, sign stimuli and the fixed action pattern, notions that nowadays have, for the most part, been discarded by ethologists. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we will reconnect the discussion of superstimuli in humans with more recent theoretical ethological literature on stimulus selection and supernormal stimulation. This will allow for a reconceptualisation of evolutionary psychology’s formulation of (supernormal) stimulus selection in terms of domain-specificity and modularity. Second, we will argue that bias exploitation in a cultural species differs substantially from bias exploitation in non-cultural animals. We will explore several of those differences, and explicate why they put important constraints on the use of the superstimulus concept in the evolutionary social sciences.

Bio-Legal History, Dual Inheritance Theory and Naturalistic Comparative Law: On Content and Context Biases in Legal Evolution

In this article, I take a closer look at what contemporary evolutionary approaches to human behavior and culture could have to offer comparative legal theory. I shall argue that these contemporary evolutionary approaches have reached a sufficient level of both sophistication and agreement to warrant their cautious re-inclusion into comparative legal theory. The article is structured as follows. In the first section I will introduce the concept of “bio-legal histories” as a new, but possibly better, variant – inspired by evolutionary psychology – of the much older idea that the “psychic unity of humankind” leads to “universal comparative law.” The contemporary evolutionary approaches to human behavior (and culture) underlying these views – evolutionary psychology and cultural epidemiology – will then be contrasted to dual inheritance theory – a contemporary evolutionary approach to human behavior that is, I believe, better geared towards understanding the mechanisms leading to cultural diversity. I aim to show that the differences between these approaches and their counterparts in the comparative law literature are in large part due to their differing views on the relative likely importance of two different classes of cultural evolutionary forces: content-based biases and context-based biases. This will also allow me to express some doubts as regards memetic approaches to (comparative) law and the application of Generalized Darwinism to evolutionary economics. Finally, some possible implications of the dual inheritance theoretical approach for comparative law are briefly discussed.In this article, I take a closer look at what contemporary evolutionary approaches to human behavior and culture could have to offer comparative legal theory. I shall argue that these contemporary evolutionary approaches have reached a sufficient level of both sophistication and agreement to warrant their cautious re-inclusion into comparative legal theory. The article is structured as follows. In the first section I will introduce the concept of bio-legal histories as a new, but possibly better, variant inspired by evolutionary psychology of the much older idea that the psychic unity of humankind leads to universal comparative law. The contemporary evolutionary approaches to human behavior (and culture) underlying these views evolutionary psychology and cultural epidemiology will then be contrasted to dual inheritance theory a contemporary evolutionary approach to human behavior that is, I believe, better geared towards understanding the mechanisms leading to cultural diversity. I aim to show that the differences between these approaches and their counterparts in the comparative law literature are in large part due to their differing views on the relative likely importance of two different classes of cultural evolutionary forces: content-based biases and context-based biases. This will also allow me to express some doubts as regards memetic approaches to (comparative) law and the application of Generalized Darwinism to evolutionary economics. Finally, some possible implications of the dual inheritance theoretical approach for comparative law are briefly discussed.