Evolution of Hormonal Mechanisms for Human Family Relationships

Habecker, Heather; Flinn, Mark V.

doi:10.4324/9780429488818-4

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We note that research on chimpanzees has revealed episodes of coalition formation by subordinate males to kill previously dominant males (e.g., Pruetz et al, 2017). Hence, it seems likely that the neural, hormonal and emotional bases for this kind of behavior had already evolved in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (de Dreu et al, 2010; Habecker & Flinn, 2019; Ponzi, Flinn, Muehlenbein, & Nepomnaschy, 2020). We are arguing that the more frequent expression of this type of behavior (as envisioned in the process of self-domestication) was likely enabled by intense intergroup competition and the resulting pressure on dominants to enlist subordinates as coequal partners in the protection and expansion of group interests.…”

Section: Richard D Alexander and The Evolution Of Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Were humans their own most important selective pressure for cooperation and morality? A critical review of Richard Wrangham's The goodness paradox .

Summers¹,

Crespi²,

Flinn³

2022

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provide a critical review of the recent book by Richard W. Wrangham focused on the evolution of morality-The Goodness Paradox. We review the main points of the book, particularly as they relate to the evolution of morality in the context of self-domestication theory. In self-domestication, selective pressures exerted by some members on other members of the same species result in the gradual loss of "reactive aggression," causing interpersonal interactions within groups to become more docile and cooperative. The results relevant to the evolution of morality include (a) the extraordinary prosociality of humans compared to other species; (b) the evolution of strong standards of behavior (standards of right and wrong); (c) the evolution of third-party punishment. We then discuss specific points and alternative perspectives in the following areas: (a) the relationship between self-domestication and intergroup competition, with reference to R.D. Alexander's "Ecological Dominance and Social Competition" theory; (b) the relationship between the evolution of moral systems and the evolution of social intelligence, including the role of language in the evolution of moral systems; (c) the interaction of genetic and environmental (including cultural) influences during the evolution of morality; and (d) the complex nature of moral systems, and the role of positive-feedbacks between genetic, physiological, cognitive, social and cultural systems in their evolution. Public Significance StatementSelf-domestication is an important process that has been identified in several non-human species, and may well have played a key role in the evolution of human social systems, including the evolution of morality. In this review of Richard Wrangham's book, "The Goodness Paradox," we argue that, while selfdomestication likely had important effects on the evolution of human moral systems, it is not sufficient to explain their origin or complexity. We argue that Richard Alexander's "Ecological Dominance and Social Competition Model" provides a more complete explanation for the origin and elaboration of human moral systems.

show abstract

Section: Richard D Alexander and The Evolution Of Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Were humans their own most important selective pressure for cooperation and morality? A critical review of Richard Wrangham's The goodness paradox .

Summers¹,

Crespi²,

Flinn³

2022

Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monogamy in humans is not strict, and there is persistence of moderate sexual dimorphism. Nonetheless, long-term pair bonds may have been sufficient to favour concealed ovulation and male parenting supported by hormonal responses [ 108 , 109 , 163 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human cooperation and evolutionary transitions in individuality

Townsend

Ferraro

Habecker

et al. 2023

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major evolutionary transition in individuality involves the formation of a cooperative group and the transformation of that group into an evolutionary entity. Human cooperation shares principles with those of multicellular organisms that have undergone transitions in individuality: division of labour, communication, and fitness interdependence. After the split from the last common ancestor of hominoids, early hominins adapted to an increasingly terrestrial niche for several million years. We posit that new challenges in this niche set in motion a positive feedback loop in selection pressure for cooperation that ratcheted coevolutionary changes in sociality, communication, brains, cognition, kin relations and technology, eventually resulting in egalitarian societies with suppressed competition and rapid cumulative culture. The increasing pace of information innovation and transmission became a key aspect of the evolutionary niche that enabled humans to become formidable cooperators with explosive population growth, the ability to cooperate and compete in groups of millions, and emergent social norms, e.g. private property. Despite considerable fitness interdependence, the rise of private property, in concert with population explosion and socioeconomic inequality, subverts potential transition of human groups into evolutionary entities due to resurgence of latent competition and conflict. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Human socio-cultural evolution in light of evolutionary transitions’.

show abstract

“…The origins are posited to involve unusual aspects of human family relationships—stable breeding bonds and fathering, brother-sister bonds, grandparenting, bilateral kin bonds, affinal bonds—that facilitate interaction among individuals residing in different groups and thereby kindle cumulative culture ( Alexander, 1979 ; Hrdy, 1981 ; Chapais, 2008 ; Flinn, 2017 ). These relationships are underpinned by evolved human neurobiological and neuroendocrinological mechanisms ( MacDonald and MacDonald, 2010 ; Rilling and Mascaro, 2017 ; Stout and Hecht, 2017 ; Habecker and Flinn, 2019 ) but are flexible and diverse (e.g., Walker et al, 2010 ). Studies of social networks in hunter-gatherer bands are consistent with this family sociality link ( Hill et al, 2011 ; Walker et al, 2011 , 2013 ; Migliano et al, 2017 , 2020 ), and appear to have a long prehistory ( Mcbrearty and Brooks, 2000 ; Coward and Grove, 2011 ; Sikora et al, 2017 ; Brooks et al, 2018 ; Lombard and Högberg, 2021 ).…”

Section: Family and Socialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These parts of the human brain enable “social scenario building” or the ability to “see ourselves as others see us so that we may cause competitive others to see us as we wish them to” ( Alexander, 1990b , p. 7) and several odd cognitive abilities such as understanding sarcasm ( Shamay-Tsoory et al, 2005 ), romantic love ( Bartels and Zeki, 2004 ), and morality ( Moll et al, 2005 ). Other mechanisms that are involved in linking family relationships to an open and creative learning environment for the human child include affiliative neuropeptides, dopamine reward circuits, and the hypothalamic-anterior pituitary-adrenal system ( Gimpl and Fahrenholz, 2001 ; Flinn, 2006 ; Gordon et al, 2010 ; MacDonald and MacDonald, 2010 ; Flinn et al, 2011 ; Habecker and Flinn, 2019 , 2021 ; Quintana et al, 2019 ; Ponzi et al, 2020 ; Chong et al, 2021 ; Grinevich and Neumann, 2021 ).…”

Section: Evolution Of the Creative Cultural Brainmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Creative Neurons

Flinn

2021

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Creativity generates novel solutions to tasks by processing information. Imagination and mental representations are part of the creative process; we can mull over ideas of our own making, and construct algorithms or scenarios from them. Social scenario-building can be viewed as a human cognitive “super-power” that involves abstraction, meta-representation, time-travel, and directed imaginative thought. We humans have a “theater in our minds” to play out a near-infinite array of social strategies and contingencies. Here we propose an integrative model for why and how humans evolved extraordinary creative abilities. We posit that a key aspect of hominin evolution involved relatively open and fluid social relationships among communities, enabled by a unique extended family structure similar to that of contemporary hunter-gatherer band societies. Intercommunity relationships facilitated the rapid flow of information—“Culture”—that underpinned arms-races in information processing, language, imagination, and creativity that distinguishes humans from other species.

show abstract

Evolution of Hormonal Mechanisms for Human Family Relationships

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Were humans their own most important selective pressure for cooperation and morality? A critical review of Richard Wrangham's The goodness paradox .

Were humans their own most important selective pressure for cooperation and morality? A critical review of Richard Wrangham's The goodness paradox .

Human cooperation and evolutionary transitions in individuality

The Creative Neurons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About