spacer
The Evolution of “Man”
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Friday, August 04, 2006I think that the model of “ME MAN ... ME BIG HUNTER!!!” and “me woman ... me keep house.” ... is a little understated in terms of the complexity of human evolution and relationship ... here are some of my thoughts about the evolution of men and women, including my considerations around the idea that, “All’s fair in love and war ...”
I think there are a number of issues to consider when we're speculating about the differences and relationships between men and women. Yes, there are obvious physiological differences - men are bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive on average, women are smaller, heavier (proportionate body mass index) and less aggressive/more affiliative. However, these only tell part of the story.
For instance we also know there are issues of neurological differences as well, both anatomical and hormonal. One of the most obvious is the disproportionate size of the corpus callosum - much thicker (more neuronal mass) in women than men in a significant way. The disproportionate size of the corpus callosum between men and women has led some neuroscientists to speculate that more information is transfered between the left and right hemispheres in women than in men in ordinary cognition. This speculation led to the idea that men may literally think and act faster, leading to a more decisive, "take action" posture - but with less consideration of systemic consequences and wholeness (than women).
An English Oxford trained zoologist, Dr. Clive Bromhall, wrote a book in 2003 - "The Eternal Child," that speculated that the evolution of humankind was based on neoteny (the tendency to retain infantile or even fetal traits into adulthood - e.g.: a lack of body hair compared to other great apes, no significant change in the skeletal structure of the skull producing the pronounced chin or brow ridge development seen in adult apes ...). He further speculated that neoteny was responsible for our behaviors as well, including the ultimate increase in homosexuality in modern societies. It's a fascinating account, although I'd say as he continues to develop his theory he strays more into speculation than science. However, his basic premise of neoteny is sound and biologically reasonable. (See the review by Steve Moxon for a good overview of Bromhall's ideas)
If we stay with the more scientific aspects of Bromhall's book we can share in his more grounded speculations about behavior as well. I'm not ready to go all the way to accepting that homosexuality is due to "advancing neoteny," but I am willing to consider the effect on cultural evolution ala Dr. Clare Graves model. The simplest explanation is that as we continue to increase our cranial capacity to house our larger brains (humans vs. other apes) the evolutionary path favors neoteny. This would likely show up in behavior as well. This was amply demonstrated in the experiments by D.K. Belyaev of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Belyaev selectively bred wild grey foxes for "friendliness" and over successive generations a corresponding change in the physical appearance of the foxes towards neoteny appeared. In fact there is evidence that all domesticated animals show evidence of physiological and behavioral neoteny - and there is good evidence that we are a species of "domesticated" great apes using this paradigm.
In part I think we are now seeing a division in the world that includes among other things "states of neoteny" in our species - where some individuals are showing more traits associated with neoteny than others. This would include "softer, sweeter" men - those who show less of the signs of physical and behavioral aggression for instance. And, (let's get controversial) I think that this has been selectively bred for by women choosing for men who display these traits vs. aggression. It's pretty obvious that evolutionarily women control the breeding population overall, so what women choose for has more of an influence on species evolution and development than what men choose for in terms of reproduction.
Now we're getting somewhere, eh? So now we're faced with a consideration that the "traditional" role models of "ME MAN ... you woman" are no longer how we are ... as an ontological consideration - both in terms of our basic biological evolution and also as this has affected our cultural evolution. Human males and females are much more similar in size, shape and disposition than any other great ape (chimpanzees, orangutans, or gorillas for instance). Yet of all the great apes we may be most like bonobos physiologically and maybe even behaviorally - and in those societies women rule! - and they also make love not war ... very unlike chimps for instance.
So where does this all leave us? I think that I will withhold my conclusions although I've spent a lot of time on this topic (our ape origins, primal behavior and especially issues of submission and dominance) in my recent EPC2 - Exquisite Performance telecoaching programs (the recording are available in the Member's Only Section). Let's suffice it to say that we are still in the process of evolution and coming to terms with our considerations of love and war.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
PS - These are the kind of topics I’ll be taking up in my monthly audio newsletter that’s part of my “UnconventialAdvice™ Private Access™” group membership ... check it out for 90 Days Risk Free on me: UnconventionalAdvice - and you can listen to Free Sample right now!
(2) Comments • (1) Trackbacks • Permalink
Joseph, thank you for these very provocative thoughts! And let me continue my question to you, then!
First of all I find the concept of neoteny fascinating, and especially its end purpose, which is to keep our human brains supple, flexible and receptive to change (rather than to innate patterns) for longer!
You comment that “softness” in men is reinforced by female sexual selection. I think otherwise, at least in part.
The human species is one of the very rare ones where selection operates both ways. In most species in the animal kingdom it is the female who accepts or rejects a possible mate, thus choosing from a pool of genes, for her offspring. Not so in the human species, where both men and women compete (with members of the same sex) for the choice of a mate. Women have tended to choose mates (at least up to now) that have projected the promise of a good protector, food gatherer (hunter) and nurturer too… securing both a good gene pool as well as a good environment to raise an offspring. Thus the archetype of the attractive mail. People magazine named Mathew McConnaghey the sexiest man of the year, yes, the one with the 3 day beard. And most photographed attractive man is George Clooney! But don’t look far, you will see this guy and read about him in most romance novels, and Mills & Boon publications. At least look at their covers, there he is in all the glory of his square jaw and huge shoulders. On the other hand men are tending to select paedomorphic, neotenous women, part child and part woman (why do men like blonds afterall? Blond hair looks less “ripe” versus dark hair). A neotenous woman (kind of like Paris Hilton) stirs the protective trait in a man… a protectiveness which is then even further reinforced by women who are responsive to this trait.
Now the question is this. How will relationships evolve, as more and more women are able to raise their kids on their own, where they achieve financial independence more than ever before. In North European countries where the welfare state is strong, almost half the kids (if not more) grow in single parent families. What will happen to man – woman relationships, when people are less willing to merge into “we”, less willing to acknowledge the “Thou” and more resolved to adhere to the “I”?
Will we need new skillsets, to achieve this blissful state of flight from the ego and merging, connecting, long term, with another human being?
Agnes Mariakaki
Agnes,
Thanks for your thoughts ... however, when I refer to women selecting breeding partners I am referring to a much older pattern than the last couple of hundred years, I’m referring to patterns that are millions of years long.
When women select for men it is not the physical attraction alone that makes the difference, it’s the behavioral as well. Women select mates as much (or more) based on behaviors as on image. This is important when selecting for a partner that will assist in prolonged child rearing.
For instance we require as a species the ability to provide for the nutritional needs of an extremely fast-growing and large brain and nervous system. This is occurring simultaneously to the child requiring constant care and protection - not leaving much time for hunting game. Therefore we see a significant specialization of resources in humans. We also see a tendency to monogamy (regardless of arguments to the contrary) largely we could argue because the father needed to know that it was his offspring he was providing for - and would make the suitable sacrifices to provide suitably.
As the situation changed - i.e.: cultural evolution - the “old ways” (3,000,000 B.C.) no longer worked as well. The advent of the Agricultural Age for instance (4,000 - 3,000 B.C.) relieved some men of having to hunt to provide for their offspring. The accumulation of wealth became possible (largely initially it could again be argued in the form of excess food) - and therefore a man who controlled this wealth could raise more children, making possible mating with more than one women.
We’d have to consider the entire natural history of the species to account for how we’ve arrived where we have today - but I’ll still stand by the basic case for neoteny playing a significant role in the behaviors we see emerging more and more in the species. This would account for the lack of willingness to make the committments necessary to raise children to maturity themselve - the lack of “maturity” in the adults of the species, what has been referred to as “psychological neoteny” by some researchers, largely led by Bruce Charlton, a professor in the School of Biology at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
You’ll also find this the topic of conversation on many of the blogs out there, A Nation of Peter Pans.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
