I agree that we discount the role of biology far too often. However, I still don't accept the evolutionary perspective if it states that genetic relatedness somehow leads to more altruism or less violence. All of the genetic relatedness statements I've seen on this list could be explained without the evolutionary perspective better.
For example, the studies looking at wills don't split out biological from adoptive parents. (Paperwork is changed when babies are adopted to make the babies look biologically related.) The studies about boy babies don't seem take into account the differences in fragility and difficulty of boys versus girl babies. (I dimly remember that boy babies are more likely to die in all households.) The stuff about maternal closeness doesn't take into account the social closeness of mothers to children. (You'd likely find the same closeness to maternal families when adoptions occur.) The strongest arguments for evolutionary caring seem to come from data on step parenting, which have a lot of problems. As Herb Coleman pointed out, it would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to control for all of the factors that lead to a step parent taking on the role of a parent. Finally, I would bet that social workers etc. would be more likely to look for and call children 'abused' by nonbiological relatives. As I said before, this is not my area. Nonetheless, personally, I've seen differences in the willingness of authorities to call people abused based on economic state, not on care, or cut-and- dried facts about what is happening to children. I've seen differences from state to state. I am highly suspicious about any statistic about 'abuse', as a result, particularly when aimed at a nonbiological relatives. Although I haven't seen any studies, I would bet that people have implicit theories about the unfitness of step parents and adoptive parents. It's in literature and media, at any rate. I would bet that that label is put on nonbiological parentsmuch more quickly and easily, particularly in lower income families, even when children are not being abused. Add to that the literature on creative memories, found memories, etc... It just all doesn't add up to a neat theory for me. I will look at the book, though, if I come across it. I know that it's hard to do justice to a book, on a listserv. I think that the evolutionary perspective is an interesting perspective. > >The data on adoptive parents would be useful, though there are confounds >that would >pull the data in conflicting directions. On the one hand, adopting parents >will be >wealthier and more invested into the _role_ of parenting - factors that >should be >associated with decreased abuse/murder. On the other hand, children who >are given >up for adoption are more likely to have problems. Evidence suggests less >parental >investment in children with, for instance, congenital problems. So >comparisons of >adopting parents vs biological vs stepparents would have to be done with these >cautions. > >That children suffer more at the hands of step parents more than >biological is not >an isolated finding. There are a host of other data that collectively >support an >evolutionary perspective. Altruism and helping behavior increases with genetic >relatedness (despite the existence of both to strangers - but altruism to >strangers >is more likely to get our attention). Money bequeathed in wills should a >direct >correlation with genetic relatedness. Students get more college money from bio >parents than step parents (they are 5.5X more likely to receive college >money at >all). It is also true that attention and caring between relatives is >higher when >the lines of relatedness are maternal (e.g. your mother's sister) rather than >paternal (e.g. your father's sister), presumably because of "paternal >uncertainty." So the evolutionary perspective doesn't depend on any one >study. The >results collectively point to a role for evolutionary adaptations >modulating family >relations and patterns of care. For too long, imo, parenting has been >viewed by >researchers as a purely "social role" unadorned by biological concerns. >btw, David >Buss' _Evolutionary Psychology_ (1999) text summarizes this literature well. > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig >Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 >Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412 >--------------------------------------------------------------- >"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows >not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, >he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero. > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 914-738-1147 fax: 914-738-1078 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
