Given that humans, with our integrated and interdependent systems of body, brain and mind, evolved during the Pleistocene Epoch; 2.6 million - 11,700 years ago, it makes sense that in order to understand our current political behavior; we should gain some knowledge of the problems faced by early humans during this period. In short, to use an anthropological and Evolutionary Psychology lens when attempting to understand modern politics.
Leda Cosmides & John Tooby note in Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer, “Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.” This begs the question; what were these problems? What specific environmental conditions shaped the modern brain?
The Pleistocene Epoch was characterized by the emergence of a series of Ice Ages, where the Earth cooled, large sections of North America and Europe were covered in ice, ocean levels dropped, mega fauna – Smilodon, Mammoths and Megatherium, to name a few, died off. Early in the period, Australopithecus was extant, eventually spawning Homo erectus and later, Homo sapiens. These early humans’ lives were ones of scarcity and struggle. Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, we faced many of the same threats of famine and disease, predation and accident as other species. As well, threats from the natural world were compounded by inter and intra-communal violence.
In their 2008 paper, "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind" published in the journal Political Psychology, Dana Carney of Columbia University, John Jost of New York University, Samuel Gosling of the University of Texas, and Jeff Potter of Atof, Inc. describe conservatism "as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear.”
It is not too much of a leap to see how EP can inform how such a mindset might come about. For individuals living during the late Pleistocene, the world was a terrifying place. External threats from other humans – whether direct threats of violence, or pathogenic – exposure to diseases one may not have developed immunity to, were ever present. Xenophobia and what we might consider today to be an aggressive foreign policy, along with strict enforcement of boundaries – physical and psychological, adherence to social norms and obedience to authority, were matters of life and death.
Conservatives; those who, as Johnathan Haidt observes, are “lower on it (openness to experience), but…also higher on conscientiousness” are so due to strongly heritable temperamental personality traits. Traits which evolved to help our ancestors survive in the crucible of the late Pleistocene.
But, what about the liberals? Those who, again referencing Haidt, are high in “openness to experience”. How might EP inform our understanding of the liberal mind?
The natural world, now as in the past, offers at least two, often contradictory methods of survival. The first, discussed above, is to resist and even fear, the new. After all, newness for Stone Age humans could come at a terrible price. Occasionally though, to overcome drought, one needs to venture out in search of water. To survive famine, crossing beyond the far hills for new sources of food might be optimal. To make better tools, expand one’s mate options, to improve one’s quality of life and a host of other benefits, integration with a neighbor might be just the thing.
Broadly, as per Pew Research 2005, 40% of Americans lean conservative, 36% moderate and 22% liberal. So, over half of the US population is likely to be lower-to-average in trait openness and generally distrustful of new experiences, and just under one quarter are more open to these same experiences, and distrustful regarding traditions and restrictions, each for evolutionarily driven reasons. Although we can't be sure, it's likely that these distributions play themselves out in similar fashion in other countries and cultures as well.
It is a common fallacy that humans align themselves politically through examination of facts, situating themselves via some objective method of truth-finding. It is clear, rather, that genetically inheritable temperament plays a key role. Furthermore, it might be said that, at least historically, successful societies needs this mix and the balance of stability and novelty that results.
One’s particular temperament is informed, Evolutionary Psychologists like Johnathan Haidt, Steven Pinker and others, would argue, by a body, brain and mind, shaped by problems faced by early humans during the Pleistocene Epoch. When it comes to social interactions, from the minutiae of a private conversation, to the very public rough-and-tumble of contemporary politics, we truly are Stone Age Minds in Modern Skulls.
References:
1. https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html
2. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-pleistocene-epoch-1091371
3. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/6/1137
4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
5. https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt-35f76604464a
6. https://www.moralfoundations.org
7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States
8. https://observer.com/2016/01/the-earliest-evidence-of-violent-human-conflict-has-been-discovered/
Leda Cosmides & John Tooby note in Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer, “Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.” This begs the question; what were these problems? What specific environmental conditions shaped the modern brain?
The Pleistocene Epoch was characterized by the emergence of a series of Ice Ages, where the Earth cooled, large sections of North America and Europe were covered in ice, ocean levels dropped, mega fauna – Smilodon, Mammoths and Megatherium, to name a few, died off. Early in the period, Australopithecus was extant, eventually spawning Homo erectus and later, Homo sapiens. These early humans’ lives were ones of scarcity and struggle. Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, we faced many of the same threats of famine and disease, predation and accident as other species. As well, threats from the natural world were compounded by inter and intra-communal violence.
In their 2008 paper, "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind" published in the journal Political Psychology, Dana Carney of Columbia University, John Jost of New York University, Samuel Gosling of the University of Texas, and Jeff Potter of Atof, Inc. describe conservatism "as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear.”
It is not too much of a leap to see how EP can inform how such a mindset might come about. For individuals living during the late Pleistocene, the world was a terrifying place. External threats from other humans – whether direct threats of violence, or pathogenic – exposure to diseases one may not have developed immunity to, were ever present. Xenophobia and what we might consider today to be an aggressive foreign policy, along with strict enforcement of boundaries – physical and psychological, adherence to social norms and obedience to authority, were matters of life and death.
Conservatives; those who, as Johnathan Haidt observes, are “lower on it (openness to experience), but…also higher on conscientiousness” are so due to strongly heritable temperamental personality traits. Traits which evolved to help our ancestors survive in the crucible of the late Pleistocene.
But, what about the liberals? Those who, again referencing Haidt, are high in “openness to experience”. How might EP inform our understanding of the liberal mind?
The natural world, now as in the past, offers at least two, often contradictory methods of survival. The first, discussed above, is to resist and even fear, the new. After all, newness for Stone Age humans could come at a terrible price. Occasionally though, to overcome drought, one needs to venture out in search of water. To survive famine, crossing beyond the far hills for new sources of food might be optimal. To make better tools, expand one’s mate options, to improve one’s quality of life and a host of other benefits, integration with a neighbor might be just the thing.
Broadly, as per Pew Research 2005, 40% of Americans lean conservative, 36% moderate and 22% liberal. So, over half of the US population is likely to be lower-to-average in trait openness and generally distrustful of new experiences, and just under one quarter are more open to these same experiences, and distrustful regarding traditions and restrictions, each for evolutionarily driven reasons. Although we can't be sure, it's likely that these distributions play themselves out in similar fashion in other countries and cultures as well.
It is a common fallacy that humans align themselves politically through examination of facts, situating themselves via some objective method of truth-finding. It is clear, rather, that genetically inheritable temperament plays a key role. Furthermore, it might be said that, at least historically, successful societies needs this mix and the balance of stability and novelty that results.
One’s particular temperament is informed, Evolutionary Psychologists like Johnathan Haidt, Steven Pinker and others, would argue, by a body, brain and mind, shaped by problems faced by early humans during the Pleistocene Epoch. When it comes to social interactions, from the minutiae of a private conversation, to the very public rough-and-tumble of contemporary politics, we truly are Stone Age Minds in Modern Skulls.
References:
1. https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html
2. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-pleistocene-epoch-1091371
3. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/6/1137
4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
5. https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt-35f76604464a
6. https://www.moralfoundations.org
7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States
8. https://observer.com/2016/01/the-earliest-evidence-of-violent-human-conflict-has-been-discovered/