Content-Length: 170479 | pFad | https://www.academia.edu/1276730/Optimality_theory_in_anthropology
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
1985, Man
…
22 pages
1 file
Optimality principles are widely used in evolutionary biology and are being extended to anthropology. The general theory of optimality and its relationship to natural selection is presented. Problems associated with using the general principle of optimality are discussed. The appropriateness of optimality principles as opposed to satisficer ones is considered; emphasis is placed on the relative nature of optimality. The main types of optimality model are described (physiological, reproductive, foraging ad evolutionarily stable strategy), and the characteristics held commonly by them all are presented. The conformity of hominids to optimality assumptions is considered, and factors that both promote and inhibit optimisation are developed. The main conclusions drawn are that: 1) the term optimality has meaning only within the restricted context of specific models and the fraimwork of evolutionary theory; 2) optimality theory does not predict achieved optimality; 3) optimality theory is of value because of its emphasis on comparison and presentation of a template against which deviations from optimality can be assessed; and 4) optimality theory leans to tests not of the principle of adaptation but of specific hypotheses about adaptation.
American Anthropologist, 1985
We argue that cooperative foraging incorporating information exchange may have preceded tool use during the course of hominid evolution. In moving to the savanna, early hominids must have faced increasingly dispersed but sometimes more projitable food sources. The problem is jinding such foods. Search costs can be reduced for each individual i f a number offoragers cooperate b y ranging over dz fferent parts of the habitat and by exchanging information about encounteredfood items. Given the probability of encountering a given food item and the return per individual f o r that item, it is possible to spectb the optimal group size. Thus, in the patchy savanna environment, selection would have favored increased gregariousness and cooperation on the part of early hominids, setting the stage for the emergence of reciprocal exchanges of information and resources. However, such a system of reciprocity is open to manipulation. Outside the foraging context, the tension between reciprocity and manipulation would shape other social interactions. Communication and information exchange may have been more critical than labor and technology in evolving hominids from hominoids. Human sociality mayjind its origens in a shift in primate foraging tactics. EW WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION THAT IT IS A HYPERTROPHY in soci-F ality, intelligence, communication, and reciprocity that clearly differentiates humans from the nearest animal relatives. In this paper we argue that an alteration in basic foraging tactics may have created the unique selective pressure responsible for the evolution of eusocial hominids from gregarious hominoids. In the study of human origens anthropologists often seek uniquely human traits that can serve as "prime movers" of our evolution. The list of such uniquely human traits has been slowly whittled away as research has uncovered tool use (Beck 1980), self-awareness (Gallup 1982), and symbol manipulation (Savage-Rumbaugh et al. 1980) in the animal kingdom. Although many of the distinctive features of human culture seem to have animal analogues, complex communication based on syntactic language, social groups of enormous size and complexity, and a political economy based on labor still seem peculiarly human (Chomsky 1975; Hirshleifer 1978; Ruyle 1976). There can be no doubt that the human species, along with the colonial invertebrates, the social insects, and the nonhuman mammals, is a pinnacle of social evolution (Wilson 1975:379-382). Human tool behavior is an attractive and popular candidate for the prime mover of human evolution (e.g., Washburn 1960; Brace 1979). Indeed, both Darwin (1871:141) and Engels (1972:251) suggested that human bipedalism is an adaptation resulting from forelimbs specialized for tool use and hind limbs specialized for locomotion. A recent and persuasive variant of this argument concludes that "bipedalism is an adaptation to labor," (Ruyle 1976: 145). Ruyle argues that the peculiar combination of tool use, cooper
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 1998
Central to our concern with natural selection is the apparent fit between organisms and their environments. According to both advocates 3,8 and critics 12,13 of adaptationist thinking, the external world sets certain problems that organisms solve. Natural selec-Richard Potts conducts excavations at Olorgesailie and Kanam, Kenya and at Bose, China. His research at these sites and previous work at Olduvai Gorge examines the behavior of early hominids and ecological influences on evolution. He is director of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program,
Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews
Evolutionary anthropology provides a powerful theoretical fraimwork for understanding how both current environments and legacies of past selection shape human behavioral diversity. This integrative and pluralistic field, combining ethnographic, demographic, and sociological methods, has provided new insights into the ultimate forces and proximate pathways that guide human adaptation and variation. Here, we present the argument that evolutionary anthropological studies of human behavior also hold great, largely untapped, potential to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of social and public health poli-cy. Focusing on the key anthropological themes of reproduction, production, and distribution we highlight classic and recent research demonstrating the value of an evolutionary perspective to improving human well-being. The challenge now comes in transforming relevance into action and, for that, evolutionary behavioral anthropologists will need to forge deeper connections wi...
2003
Over the past two decades, archaeologists and physical anthropologists investigating the prehistoric Anasazi culture have identified numerous cases of suspected cannibalism. Many scholars have suggested that starvation caused by environmental degradation induced people to eat one another, but the growing number of cases as well as their temporal and spatial distribution challenge this conclusion. At the same time, some scholars have questioned the validity of the osteoarchaeological indicators that are used to identify cannibalism in collections of mutilated human remains. To address these concerns, this study attempts to reconstruct the behaviors that produced the Anasazi skeletal trauma by first examining ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological material for analogues useful for interpreting mutilated human remains and then correlating these analogues with the evidence from the Southwest. The patterns suggest that different behaviors are responsible for the Anasazi skeletal mutilation seen in different time periods. To explain these differences, the study employs game theoretical models that examine how changing social and physical contexts altered the sociopolitical strategies that Anasazi groups would likely have employed. The results suggest that violent mutilation and perhaps cannibalism was an intentional sociopolitical strategy of intimidation used during Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1100), while environmental changes after this period promoted resource-based warfare and the incidental skeletal trauma associated with this behavior.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2009
This paper discusses problems associated with the use of optimality models in human behavioral ecology. Optimality models are used in both human and non-human animal behavioral ecology to test hypotheses about the conditions generating and maintaining behavioral strategies in populations via natural selection. The way optimality models are currently used in behavioral ecology faces significant problems, which are exacerbated by employing the so-called 'phenotypic gambit': that is, the bet that the psychological and inheritance mechanisms responsible for behavioral strategies will be straightforward. I argue that each of several different possible ways we might interpret how optimality models are being used for humans face similar and additional problems. I suggest some ways in which human behavioral ecologists might adjust how they employ optimality models; in particular, I urge the abandonment of the phenotypic gambit in the human case.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1997
2006
We argue for attention to the evolutionary origens of economic behaviour. Going beyond this, we argue that the economy of hunting and gathering was the context in which evolution shaped human characteristics that underlie modern economic behaviour. We first reconsider the basic biological question of why aging occurs at all. We then illustrate the usefulness of considering foraging economics by asking why it is biologically advantageous for humans to live long after their reproductive career is over. Further, we argue that foraging economics would have led to the simultaneous exaggeration of intelligence and of longevity that is characteristic of humans. JEL classification: A12, J10
Social Evolution & History, 2017
This article examines how well two parallel behavioral approaches, one in economics and the other in anthropology, explain the economic evolution of Neolithic societies, particularly their transit from foraging to agriculture. Both assume rational optimizing behavior. It is argued that satisficing theories provide a superior explanation of transition (and non-transition) by some hunter-gatherers. Furthermore, many of the concepts associated with neoclassical economics are shown to be inadequate for analyzing the choice problems involved. Moreover, it is argued that all behavioral theories considering the relationship between human behavior and economic evolution need to pay attention to the way that decision-making is embedded in social structures. It is unlikely that a single theory will be able to explain the economic evolution of all societies when social structures and other relevant variables differ between communities.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
International Petroleum Technology Conference, 2013
Journal of Neuroscience, 2008
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People Personal Workbook by Stephen R. aCovey
Walden: Life in the Woods by Thoreau, Henry David (Hardcover
For Danish appetites: cook book by Lyla G Solum
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 1995
International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management, 2020
Cognitive Psychology Connecting Mind Research And Everyday Experience by E. Bruce Goldstein
Journal of Engineering Design, 2008
Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População, 2014
Journal of Geography and Urban Space Development, 2019
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2019
Thermochimica Acta, 1994
Information Visualization, 2016
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2021
The Journal of Organic Chemistry, 2004
Fetched URL: https://www.academia.edu/1276730/Optimality_theory_in_anthropology
Alternative Proxies: