Fitness indicator theories like Rowe and Houle's model can help us to understand the evolution of the human mind. Our capacities for music, art, creativity, humor, and poetry do not look like ordinary adaptations are supposed to look. Evolutionary psychologists like John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, David Buss, and Steven Pinker have developed some rules for recognizing mental adaptations. If a human mental trait evolved through natural selection for some specific function, it is supposed to show small differences between people, because selection should have eliminated maladaptive variation long ago. It is supposed to show low heritability, because selection should have eliminated all genes other than the optimal ones long ago. It is supposed to be efficient and low in cost, because natural selection favors efficient problemsolving. And it is supposed to be modular and specialized for solving a particular problem, because modular specialization is the efficient way to engineer things.
Fitness indicators violate all these criteria. If a mental trait evolved through sexual selection as a fitness indicator, it should show large differences between people. It evolved specifically to help sexual choice discriminate in favor of its possessor at the expense of sexual rivals. Fitness indicators can show high herit-ability because they tap into genetic variation in fitness, and fitness usually remains heritable. For fitness indicators to be reliable, they have to be wasteful, not efficient. They have to have high costs that make them look very inefficient compared with survival adaptations. Finally, fitness indicators cannot be totally modular and separate from other adaptations, because their whole point is to capture general features of an organism's health, fertility, intelligence, and fitness. The peacock's tail appears to fit this profile as a fitness indicator, and many human mental abilities do as well.
To traditional evolutionary psychologists, human abilities like music, humor, and creativity do not look like adaptations because they look too variable, too heritable, too wasteful, and not very modular. But these are precisely the features we should expect of fitness indicators. If a human mental trait shows large individual differences, high heritability, high condition-dependence, high costs, and high correlations with other mental and physical abilities, then it may have evolved through sexual selection as a fitness indicator.
If we make an inventory of what the human brain can do, we find two general themes: very few of the ancient mental abilities that we share with other apes look like fitness indicators, but many mental abilities unique to humans do look like fitness indicators. There are probably thousands of psychological adaptations in the human mind. The vast majority are shared with other species. Some evolved hundreds of millions of years ago and are shared with thousands of species. Some evolved only a few million years ago and are shared only with other great apes. We have exquisitely efficient mechanisms for regulating our breathing, controlling our limbs, keeping our balance, seeing colors, remembering spatial locations, learning foraging skills, being kind to offspring, feeling pain when injured, remembering faces, making friends, punishing cheats, perceiving social status, estimating risks, and so forth. Steven Pinker has explored many of these mechanisms in his book How the Mind Works. When I propose a shorthand slogan like "the human mind evolved through sexual selection," I do not mean that sexual selection shaped all of these adaptations that we share with other primates. Of course, about 90 percent of our psychological adaptations evolved through standard natural selection and social selection to solve routine problems of surviving and living in groups. Evolutionary psychology has proven very good at analyzing these adaptations.
My interest is in the psychological adaptations that are uniquely human, the 10 percent or so of the brain's capacities that are not shared with other apes. This is where we find puzzling abilities like creative intelligence and complex language that show these great individual differences, these ridiculously high heritabilities, and these absurd wastes of time, energy, and effort. To accept these abilities as legitimate biological adaptations worthy of study, evolutionary psychology must broaden its view of what an adaptation should look like. At the moment, too many scientists are mis-describing effective fitness indicators like music and art as if they were nothing more than cultural inventions or learned skills. Their expression certainly depends on cultural traditions and years of practice, but other species with different genes cannot learn to do them no matter how hard they might try. If one banishes all these fitness indicators to the realm of "culture," then it does not look as if sexual choice had much impact on the human mind's evolution. But if one accepts fitness indicators as legitimate biological adaptations, then one starts to see the tracks of sexual selection all over our minds.
Was this article helpful?