Are modern human behaviors the result of past evolutionary pressures, or are they the product of social culture and environment?

This article explores how evolutionary psychology is used to explain the human mind and behavior, focusing on the book The Old Toolbox. Using a variety of examples, including differences in male and female behavior, the author argues that the human mind has evolved for the purposes of survival and reproduction, and also discusses its interaction with social factors.

 

The theory of evolution has been at the center of scientific inquiry and debate since it was first proposed by Darwin, and has played an important role in discussions about human origins and nature. Attempts to explain human behavior, psychology, and social structure from an evolutionary perspective have always sparked heated debate among academics and the public alike. This book extends evolutionary theory through the relatively new field of evolutionary psychology, which explores in depth how our everyday behaviors and choices are intertwined with human evolution.
Specifically, the author, a scholar in the field of evolutionary psychology, makes the intriguing claim that the human mind has evolved to cope with many situations and solve problems appropriately. This argument goes beyond the simple framework of biological evolution and provides important insights into how our complex psychological structures and behaviors have developed. In his introduction to the book, he likens the human mind to an old extension cord. Today’s invented tools, such as a machete knife or a multitool, can be used to do a variety of tasks, such as cutting and drilling, whereas a hammer, saw, or drill can only do one thing: drive a nail, cut a board, or drill a hole. In this way, the authors argue that our minds are not designed to solve abstract problems like the meaning of life or the existence of God, but rather to solve many concrete problems, such as how to choose a mate or how to effectively nourish ourselves.
He cites historical examples and patterns of behavior in modern society to support this claim, and argues that an evolutionary psychology approach can explain much of human behavior. For example, he compares how survival strategies in ancient societies and consumption habits in modern societies share evolutionary roots, showing that human psychology is not simply a product of environmental adaptation, but the result of strategic choices made over time.
This book made me think that the human mind may have evolved to fulfill the ultimate goal of survival and reproduction of the species. To use the analogy of a jockey on a horse, human behavior is the horse’s running, the mind is the jockey’s whip, and the ultimate goal of survival and reproduction is the jockey’s ultimate goal of winning the race. The jockey whips the horse to win the race, and the horse runs in response. In the same way, the mind is generated in the direction of pursuing ‘survival and successful reproduction’, and the mind is expressed in human behavior. In short, the ultimate purpose of all human behavior is to survive and reproduce.
The author also argues that the human mind is not simply a remnant of the past, but is still a powerful influence in modern society. He explains that despite the rapidly changing environment in which we live, our psychological mechanisms are still rooted in past evolutionary conditions. This suggests that many of the problems of modern society, such as anxiety, stress, and relationship conflict, are deeply connected to our evolutionary heritage. From this perspective, human psychology hasn’t evolved to solve current problems, but rather to optimize for survival and reproduction in the past.
If you’re trying to cross a street and the light is red, statistically, men are more likely to cross at red lights than women. This phenomenon, which at first glance seems to have nothing to do with the word “evolution,” can be explained by evolutionary psychology. Crossing the street when you know the light is red is the result of an activist psychology that says, “Even if it’s risky, let’s try it.” But why are men more likely to take risks than women? The answer is that evolutionary psychology, the psychology that developed to increase reproductive success, has also influenced the differences in behavior between men and women.
What does risk-taking have to do with male reproductive success? In Chapter 2, the authors explain that in men, the behaviorist drive to have a large number of relationships with women, rather than stability, leads to an adventurous “let’s try something risky” mentality. The mechanism by which a man’s sperm combines with a woman’s egg to create a fertilized egg, which then implants in the woman’s uterus and gives birth about 10 months later is a biologically proven fact. From a man’s perspective, the way to increase his reproductive success, or in other words, the way to spread his offspring far and wide, is to provide his sperm to many women. This is why men are biologically wired to want more sexual relationships than women.
In other words, men are biologically wired to want to have relationships with many women, and this psychology has evolved into a risk-taking, activist psychology, and this evolved psychology is expressed in the form of jaywalking.
The other side of the argument, which believes that the influence of society, environment, and relationships is essential to the development of the human mind and culture, can interpret this phenomenon as follows. Although the number of working mothers and dual-income families has increased in recent years, couples are still predominantly composed of husbands and wives who share economic and household activities. Due to this difference in roles, it can be argued that men are more likely to engage in outdoor activities such as commuting to work than women, and the frequency of jaywalking has increased proportionally. In other words, it could be argued that the different roles of men and women in the modern family have led to these results.
However, this argument is less convincing if we compare men and women on the same basis. For example, if a man and a woman go out and return home, and we compare men and women using the common metric of “jaywalking per unit of time” by finding the value of (number of jaywalks) / (time spent out), the number will be larger for men than for women, i.e., all things being equal, men will definitely jaywalk more often than women.
Or you might try to find a loophole in my argument this way. “So, from a woman’s point of view, isn’t it equally beneficial for the species to have as many relationships with men as possible, and shouldn’t she develop the same activist tendencies?” However, this is explained by differences in women’s biology and evolutionary psychology.
Unlike men, women have to spend a lot of time carrying and raising a child once they get pregnant, until they give birth 10 months later, and even then they have to nurse and be directly involved in childcare. Because of these characteristics, women are psychologically conditioned to seek out genetically superior male sperm to ensure the stability of their offspring, rather than to have multiple relationships with random men. Men’s minds evolved in a very different direction. Women who have to carry a child in their belly for 10 months are more likely to seek stability than recklessness, which can be explained by the fact that they are less likely to jaywalk.
Opponents of evolutionary psychology might argue. ‘It’s just that most societies are already structured so that men are statistically more reckless, so it’s not a reflection of their psychology, it’s a reflection of the characteristics of the society that influenced that psychology.’ But how do we explain why that society was created?
The authors introduce the concept of ‘induced culture’ by criticizing social scientists who draw a line at the very idea of ‘cultural differences’ without being able to explain why they occur. The idea is that culture does not cause differences, but rather that universal psychological mechanisms respond to different environmental conditions to produce different outcomes.
Applying this concept to the jaywalking example we’ve been talking about so far creates a natural progression that flows like water. The differences in the anatomy of men and women have led to the development of a psychology that is more activist in men and more safety-oriented in women, and these differences in psychology collectively work in a population to create a society where men are more active. If social scientists are indeed right and evolutionary psychologists are wrong, then we need to find a rebuttal to this trend.
These discussions are not just academic, but have important implications for understanding a variety of real-world social issues. For example, evolutionary psychology’s approach to understanding behavioral differences between men and women is closely linked to topics such as gender roles, sexism, and social expectations. These topics are still controversial today, especially with regard to changing gender roles in modern society. Therefore, re-examining gender roles through the lens of evolutionary psychology can be an important contribution to understanding complex issues in modern society.
As someone who has a great deal of faith in the validity of the theory of evolution, I found myself sympathizing with most of this book. It was refreshing to read passages that directly refuted the opinions of creationists, humanists, and sociologists with objective and powerful examples. Each chapter intertwines the evolution of the human mind with various topics such as culture, food, climate, terrain, music, religion, hair, and morality. The chapter I mentioned above was the most interesting because it analyzed the concepts that people usually take for granted about human “sex” and the differences between them from a completely new perspective: the evolution of the mind. This book opened my eyes to the validity of evolutionary psychology and made it stick in my head.
While there are many different and specific examples that can be presented to support the argument in favor of the evolution of the mind, it is undeniable that it is relatively difficult to find convincing evidence for the opposition. No social science theory can compete with the claim that even seemingly unrelated behaviors, such as men crossing the street at red lights more often than women, stem from an evolved mind that is driven by survival and reproduction.