The Evolution of Morality

Full playlist:

Marc D. Hauser is an evolutionary biologist who teaches at the Psychology Department at Harvard University.

Bio . Lab .

Ignorant Creationist Tactics

One of the most beloved of all creationist fallacies is argumentum ad ignorantiam, also called the argument from ignorance. Creationists very often are ignorant of the theories that they are attacking in strawman arguments. Many American high schools have avoided teaching evolutionary theory, and matters are made worse by the deliberate misinformation on websites such as those run by the misnamed Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.

However, argumentum ad ignorantiam is not about ignorance of the facts, per se. Instead it refers to the false dichotomy that is created by ignoring, or being ignorant of, the actual alternatives.

Strictly, the term proof applies only to mathematics and specially constructed logical syllogisms. However, since disproof is a legitimate term, I shall use proof – with air-quotes implied.

A proposition, or premise, is either true or false. Needless to say, there can be many more false propositions than true propositions.

A false premise can be either disproven, not yet disproven, or logically impossible to disprove.

A true premise can be either proven, not yet proven, or technically impossible to prove.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam erroneously assumes that failure of disproof indicates that a claim is true, or that failure of proof indicates that a claim is false. These combinations are included in the possibilities, but they are not the only possibilities.

The argumentum ad ignorantiam is frequently implied, rather than being explicitly stated, in common, fallacious strategies used by creationists.

Even though the underlying assumptions are not stated, creationist attacks on cosmology, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all motivated by the deep-seated, theistic belief that only two alternatives obtain – namely current scientific understanding OR a creator.

I have most frequently encountered theistic demands that atheists must prove biological evolution. The fallacious implication is that failure to do so will prove creationism, and hence prove God’s existence. Since there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution, this is a preposterous challenge – particularly in view of YouTube’s 500 character limit, and despite the possibility of uploading video after video after video.

There is no point in attempting to fulfill a patently ridiculous request, particularly when creationists will dismiss all explanations out of hand. Better, I think, to call the creationist on the fallacy and to refer him (possibly her) to particular videos on the science channels, to a museum, or to books, such as Dawkins’ latest.

The flip side of this challenge is the creationist assumption that denying or ridiculing evidence for evolution is equivalent to disproof of evolution, and hence proof of creationism, and thus of God’s existence. In making this assumption, the creationist reveals the depth of his or her ignorance of scientific method. Disproof of any scientific hypothesis entails experimental falsification. Ridicule does not count, although it is undoubtedly emotionally satisfying to those whose ignorance renders them unaware of the futility of the tactic.

Another fallacious challenge is that atheists must prove that god does not exist. The assumption is that failure to disprove god is equivalent to proving god.

Not so fast! First, this demand is shifting the burden of proof onto those who merely do not accept the positive claim for God’s existence.

Second, it is logically impossible to prove that something that does not exist does not, in fact, exist. I’ll make that simpler. It is logically impossible to prove a non-existence. It is for this reason that modern western courts assume innocence unless guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

To prove the non-existence of the purported deity would require the scouring of every inch of the entire universe and beyond. As such, the all-too-familiar religionist taunt is utterly illogical.

Don’t take the bait! There are ample other reasons for doubting the existence of a creator deity. The most obvious is the fact that something powerful enough to create an entire universe should have left evidence that cannot be explained in any other way. It is the very lack of evidence that has caused more scientists, particularly eminent scientists, to be atheistic than any other group.

Every time that a creationist or religionist uses any of these arguments, or evokes an apologetic argument -- and all are refuted -- they are effectively admitting that they have no evidence for the existence of their mythical creator.

Ardi Video Mining

Creationists are necessarily liars:



Creationism, in all its many guises, is a religious belief. Genesis comprises an internally inconsistent, allegorical creation-myth. Biblical literalists seem incapable of reconciling their emotional needs for priveleged status with the realities of inconsistent scriptures packed with errors. Because several areas of science falsify biblical metaphysics, creationists rely upon ignorance, misinformation (aka lies), and a variety of fallacies of logic to protect their precious delusions.

This video includes yet another lie from the comedy duo of Bananaman Ray Comfort and Failed Actor Kirk Cameron. Attacks on science substitute for the evidence that is glaringly missing from creationist claims. To assume that ridiculing scientific evidence renders creationism correct is to rely upon a fallacious argument from ignorance. This pathetic tactic highlights the intellectual poverty of the creationist position. Note, intellectual poverty does not prevent charlatans from making lots of money by peddling lies to the deluded.

For comparison:
Hand over Wrist
All the better to climb trees with


The video segment is from the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQQ6UCfijyc

The complete documentary on the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus is here:


Playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A033F703945B67EE


Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae). Two species are described in the literature: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago during the early Pliocene, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago (late Miocene).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuckle-walkinghttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/46246/title/Humanity%E2%80%99s_upright_gait_may_have_roots_in_treeshttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/46249/title/bb_knuckle_walking.jpg

Humans share ~98 % of DNA sequences with our nearest relatives, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee

All the better to climb trees with

The feet of Ardipithecus ramidus and common chimpanzees. Roll over image for description.

Hand over Wrist

Comparisons of the hands and wrists of Ardipithecus ramidus and other great apes (including us). Roll over image for identification.

INP atheist bloggers - ESF church goers

ESFJ is the commonest personality type on the MBTI. The Myers-Briggs Types Inventory is generally useful with regard to attitudes. The MBTI types individuals according to their self-report of preferential approaches to others and to information:

With regard to dogmatism (a feature of Republicans and the religious):

"A sample of 422 female undergraduate students, attending a university-sector college in Wales specialising in teacher education and liberal arts subjects, completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator together with the Troldahl-Powell Dogmatism Scale. The data demonstrated that higher dogmatism scores are most clearly associated with sensing rather than intuition. Higher dogmatism scores are also associated with extraversion rather than introversion, and with judging rather than perceiving. No significant difference in dogmatism scores were found between thinking and feeling."

Source:
Dogmatism, Religion, and Psychological Type, Christopher F. J. Ross, Leslie J. Francis and Charlotte L. Craig, Pastoral Psychology, Volume 53, Number 5 / May, 2005


That is, ESJ types are indeed more likely to be dogmatic. It's interesting that there was no significant difference in dogmatism between self-reports of T versus F.

E/I : extroversion vs introversion – outgoing, energized by social interaction vs introspective and fatigued by too much socializing.

S/N : sensing vs intuitive – satisfaction with the basic information (S) vs a tendency to search for cognitive insights based upon that information (N).

F/T : feeling vs thinking – self-perception of basing of decisions upon 'gut'-level intuitions and feeling (F) vs basing of decisions on logic and rationality (T).

J/P : judging vs perceiving – a preference for closed-ended structure and quick decisions (J) vs a desire to keep options open and to seek more information before making decisions (P).

Because the inventory is administered by fee-charging professionals who purchase it from the developers, it is not available on-line. However, it is not too difficult to quickly guesstimate where you – and your family and friends –would place on the inventory. This page has a chart with roll-over descriptions of each combination.

The four parameters yield 16 different combinations. Though many mental health professionals might treat these combinations as cut-and-dried, there are shades of gray to these parameters – for example, you might consistently base some types of decisions on feelings and other types of decisions on logic.

Information adapted from here.

Dis-information Explosion

Handy though the Internet may be it has permitted a proliferation not merely of misinformation but of dis-information and downright stupidity.

Any fool — and this could include yours truly — can now publish their ramblings on the Internet. Any fool can find, courtesy of content-blind search engines, some emotionally appealing theory that fits their prejudices and sneaks past their lack of logic and/or knowledge. The problem, of course, is that few fools, as Giorgio W. Borgia illustrates, know that they are fools.

Once upon a time, editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals determined what information was valid in scientific fields. Nowadays, a proliferation of religiously-biased pseudoscience is foisted onto an already science-ignorant society that lacks sufficient acumen to determine that most of the supposed uncertainty surrounding science has been manufactured to suit religious ends. This is not to say that science has all the answers, but it is to say that denying scientific facts does not constitute evidence that science has found few valid explanations.

Most scientists – Michael Behe is an egregious exception – have not sold out to biased philosophical pretentions that claim to represent genuine science. However, religiously oriented websites and internet trolls abound to glorify creationinsts and promote anti-educational sentiments.

Agnosticism is LESS rational than Atheism

"So your stance, if I understand it correctly, is that yes, indeed, the likelihoods of the existences of a Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, unicorns, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters are all approximately equal. Well, see, I do think this stance is frivolous. Do you really feel that this God that we’re talking about, this God that is the basis of three religions that have profoundly shaped western civilization for around 3,000 years, that this God can be dismissed in the same breath as an intellectual prop fabricated by some graduate student? Now, I’m not saying that 3,000 years of backstory means that you must, lemming-like, go along with 89% of the rest of the population of this country and *believe* in God. But, surely you must recognize the difference here between these two hypotheses?

I guess what I’m saying is that, out of respect for the rather large majority of thinking, reasoning, good human beings who believe, I’m willing to go to greater lengths to keep my mind open about the existence of a personal God than that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think the collective belief of millions adds up to evidence that I’m willing to consider despite the fact that it’s not empirical."[s]

Response: Courtesy is fine, but being courteous is not an argument for agnosticism over atheism. The fact that the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God has prospered over unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters speaks only to The Clerical Publicity Machine and is not an argument for the existence of the purported deity claimed by that machine. It’s a fallacious “argument to popularity” to hold that the fact that many have been taught to believe in this Judeo-Islamo-Christian conception signifies that the teachings are valid.

If the prevailing publicity structure had instead insisted upon the existence of the Great Unicorn in the Sky, on which we would all Ride to Heaven, then priests (presumably adorned with uni-horned hats) would be extolling the virtues of this Mythical, Supernatural, All-Loving Creator of Humans.

On the basis of logic alone, it could be argued that the agnostic view, which holds that it simply is not knowable whether or not whatever deity exists, is more philosophically rigorous than stating that there is no God.

However, certain *falsified* falsibiable creation claims are made about the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, so the *falsification* of these claims renders Atheism the most rational conclusion. By corollary, other creation mythologies, as well as the practical need for interventionist deities are falsified by the same scientific findings.

Agnostics resort to Humean skepticism in their arguments that take the position that absolute uncertainty is impossible, so agnosticism is the only correct stance. This argument is problematic. It ignores the original meaning of agnosticism, substituting a circular definition that relies upon the impossibility of absolute certainty. Whatever baseline degree of uncertainty obtains, the same base level applies to all epistemic enquiries. However, not all knowledge is equally uncertain, so it is not useful to tar all understanding with the same brush.

Further, if , at minimum, an uninvolved creator deity existed, then that deity has interacted with the physical world and, so, is necessarily physical. It follows that there ought to be evidence for a deity. The so-called supernatural was invented in order to remove the non-evidence for a deity as far from refutation as possible. Although it would be dissonant for theists and deists to admit that evidence should exist, the apologetic necessity for a supernatural excuse points supports the positive conclusion that no deity exists.

I grow tired of being polite to people merely because they have been brainwashed into collective belief in a non-existent, demanding, invented deity.

From here.

IQ Up, Religiosity Down

This comment was posted on a website where an inverse correlation between verbal IQ and religiosity was discussed.

"We all know that correlation does not necessarily indicated causation, though causation may be indirectly linked to the correlation."

My experience suggests several things: higher verbal IQ scores result from interaction of genetic cognitive potential with education, which in turn forces more logical approaches, which in turn reduces religiosity. Since most Westerners are introduced to religious concepts when young, most agnostics and atheists have moved away from religious belief. I think that this directionality does suggest that intelligence (read as logic combined with education) precedes, and hence causes, reduced religiosity.

Most people are not particularly logical, and those with little formal education are the least logical. Those people whom I have known who are both intelligent and religious typically have emotional issues that necessitate a comforting belief system. So, emotionality is a confounding factor, as are early indoctrination and community peer pressure. I think that to tease out the truth about the connection between religiosity and intelligence would require examining all the possible variables and not merely religiosity and verbal IQ."

There's a graph showing the U.S. compared to some wealthy nations and more links here.

Who knows what level of intelligence these folks possess? They ought to be embarrassed about singing such prejudiced, hateful material, but I'm certain that they will not. It is the typical error of those who band together in hatefulness to assume that they take the higher moral ground. This strikes me as one of the perks of religious fanaticism – guilt free obnoxiousness. Jesus would roll in his grave at what has become of his pleas for tolerance.

Darwin

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 16;106 Suppl 1:10033-9. Epub 2009 Jun 15.

Darwin and the scientific method.

Ayala FJ.

There is a contradiction between Darwin's methodology and how he described it for public consumption. Darwin claimed that he proceeded "on true Baconian [inductive] principles and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale." He also wrote, "How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!" The scientific method includes 2 episodes. The first consists of formulating hypotheses; the second consists of experimentally testing them. What differentiates science from other knowledge is the second episode: subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing by observing whether or not predictions derived from a hypothesis are the case in relevant observations and experiments. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is consistent with some but not other possible states of affairs not yet observed, so that it is subject to the possibility of falsification by reference to experience. Darwin occupies an exalted place in the history of Western thought, deservedly receiving credit for the theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, he laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. More important yet is that he discovered natural selection, the process that accounts for the adaptations of organisms and their complexity and diversification. Natural selection and other causal processes of evolution are investigated by formulating and testing hypotheses. Darwin advanced hypotheses in multiple fields, including geology, plant morphology and physiology, psychology, and evolution, and subjected them to severe empirical tests.

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. fjayala@uci.edu

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104 Suppl 1:8567-73. Epub 2007 May 9.

Darwin's greatest discovery: design without designer.

Ayala FJ.

Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin's discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer. The Copernican and the Darwinian Revolutions may be seen as the two stages of the one Scientific Revolution. They jointly ushered in the beginning of science in the modern sense of the word: explanation through natural laws. Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the "design" of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection. Which characteristics will be selected depends on which variations happen to be present at a given time in a given place. This in turn depends on the random process of mutation as well as on the previous history of the organisms. Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life. This was Darwin's fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious.

Free Full Text PNAS

Group Selection

Endeavour. 2005 Mar;29(1):43-7.

The rise, fall and resurrection of group selection.

Borrello ME.

The changing fate of group selection theory illustrates nicely the importance of studying the history of science. It was Charles Darwin that first used something like group selection to explain how natural selection could give rise to altruistic behavior and moral instinct. These instincts could be accommodated by his theory of evolution, he argued, if they had evolved 'for the good of the community'. By the 1960s, group selection had a new and vocal advocate in V.C. Wynne-Edwards. But this gave critics of the theory that selection might act on groups, rather than at the level of individuals or genes, a definable target, and from the mid-1960s to the 1980s group selection was considered the archetypal example of flawed evolutionary thinking. However, at the end of the 20th century ideas of group selection re-emerged as an important component of a multilevel theory of evolution.

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 100 Ecology Building, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, USA. borrello@umn.edu


Ann Hum Biol. 2000 May-Jun;27(3):221-37.

Biological adaptation and social behaviour.

Crognier E.

In 1930, both Fisher and Wright identified Darwin's initial concept of adaptive evolution in the light of the genetical theory with intergenerational variation in allelic frequencies brought about by the action of natural selection through differential reproduction. They emphasized that selection only works at the level of the individual and that its only consequence is to increase fitness. One genetical evolution not easy to explain on these bases was that of social behaviour because any altruistic gene disadvantageous for its carriers in an antisocial environment would have been opposed by selection. In the 1950s, ethologists focusing on what appeared to be evolved collective behaviours, hypothesized that selection could operate at group level. Though the controversy between group selectionists and evolutionary geneticists ended by the rejection of the evolutionary role of group selection, it has remained a subject of investigation until now. Kin selection, proposed by Hamilton, offered a solution to the problem of the evolution of altruism and gave the impetus to the trend of adaptive explanations of basic behaviours, which was to become the core of human sociobiology. The intrusion of behaviour into the process of adaptive evolution was an invitation to investigate culture as an evolutive process. The first sociobiological interpretations of culture as a derivative of genetic processes were followed by other ideas in which culture, though channelled by evolved predispositions, was essentially free from biological determinism. It is concluded that as we have come to better understand human adaptation, its complexities have been further revealed, a development already implicit in Darwin's notion.

UMR 6578, CNRS and Université de la Méditerranée, Faculté de Médecine Secteur Centre, Marseille, France.


Nature. 1978 Aug 31;274(5674):849-55.

Selfish genes, evolutionary games, and the adaptiveness of behaviour.

Parker GA.

The science of sociobiology, which began in principle with the work of Fisher and Haldane and has more recently been developed by Hamilton, Maynard Smith, Trivers, Wilson and others, has been the centre of both scientific and political controversy. Dr Parker discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, and illustrates that behaviour can be adapted in a complex way in conformity with sociobiological theory.

Moral Decisions

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 28;106(30):12506-11. Epub 2009 Jul 21.

Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions.

Greene JD, Paxton JM.

What makes people behave honestly when confronted with opportunities for dishonest gain? Research on the interplay between controlled and automatic processes in decision making suggests 2 hypotheses: According to the "Will" hypothesis, honesty results from the active resistance of temptation, comparable to the controlled cognitive processes that enable the delay of reward. According to the "Grace" hypothesis, honesty results from the absence of temptation, consistent with research emphasizing the determination of behavior by the presence or absence of automatic processes. To test these hypotheses, we examined neural activity in individuals confronted with opportunities for dishonest gain. Subjects undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) gained money by accurately predicting the outcomes of computerized coin-flips. In some trials, subjects recorded their predictions in advance. In other trials, subjects were rewarded based on self-reported accuracy, allowing them to gain money dishonestly by lying about the accuracy of their predictions. Many subjects behaved dishonestly, as indicated by improbable levels of "accuracy." Our findings support the Grace hypothesis. Individuals who behaved honestly exhibited no additional control-related activity (or other kind of activity) when choosing to behave honestly, as compared with a control condition in which there was no opportunity for dishonest gain. In contrast, individuals who behaved dishonestly exhibited increased activity in control-related regions of prefrontal cortex, both when choosing to behave dishonestly and on occasions when they refrained from dishonesty. Levels of activity in these regions correlated with the frequency of dishonesty in individuals.

Department of Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. jgreene@wjh.harvard.edu

Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment.
Greene JD, Cushman FA, Stewart LE, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD.
Cognition. 2009 Jun;111(3):364-71. Epub 2009 Apr 16.

The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment.
Greene JD, Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD.
Neuron. 2004 Oct 14;44(2):389-400.

An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment.
Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD.
Science. 2001 Sep 14;293(5537):2105-8.

Mutualism

J Evol Biol. 2006 Sep;19(5):1365-76.

The evolution of cooperation and altruism--a general framework and a classification of models.

Lehmann L, Keller L.

One of the enduring puzzles in biology and the social sciences is the origin and persistence of intraspecific cooperation and altruism in humans and other species. Hundreds of theoretical models have been proposed and there is much confusion about the relationship between these models. To clarify the situation, we developed a synthetic conceptual framework that delineates the conditions necessary for the evolution of altruism and cooperation. We show that at least one of the four following conditions needs to be fulfilled: direct benefits to the focal individual performing a cooperative act; direct or indirect information allowing a better than random guess about whether a given individual will behave cooperatively in repeated reciprocal interactions; preferential interactions between related individuals; and genetic correlation between genes coding for altruism and phenotypic traits that can be identified. When one or more of these conditions are met, altruism or cooperation can evolve if the cost-to-benefit ratio of altruistic and cooperative acts is greater than a threshold value. The cost-to-benefit ratio can be altered by coercion, punishment and policing which therefore act as mechanisms facilitating the evolution of altruism and cooperation. All the models proposed so far are explicitly or implicitly built on these general principles, allowing us to classify them into four general categories.



J Theor Biol. 2004 Feb 21;226(4):421-8.

Evolution of mutualism through spatial effects.

Yamamura N, Higashi M, Behera N, Yuichiro Wakano J.

Mutualism among species is ubiquitous in natural ecosystems but its evolution is not well understood. We provided a simple lattice model to clarify the importance of spatial structure for the evolution of mutualism. We assumed reproductive rates of two species are modified through interaction between species and examine conditions where mutualists of both species, that give some benefit to the other species with their own cost, invade non-mutualists populations. When dispersal of offspring is unlimited, we verified the evolution of mutualism is impossible under any condition. On the other hand, when the dispersal is limited to neighboring lattice sites, mutualists can invade if the ratio of cost to benefit is low and the intrinsic reproductive rate is low in case where the parameter values are symmetric between species. Under the same conditions, non-mutualists cannot invade mutualist populations, that is, the latter are evolutionarily stable. In case of asymmetric parameters, mutualists tend to invade if the average value of costs to two species is low or that of benefits is high, and if the intrinsic reproductive rate is low for one of the two species. A mechanistic explanation of why mutualists increase when the dispersal is limited is given by showing that mutualist pairs of the two species at the same lattice site rapidly increase at the initial phase of the invasion.


J Theor Biol. 1994 Oct 21;170(4):393-400.

Genetics of mutualism: the evolution of altruism between species.

Frank SA.

Conditions are analyzed under which natural selection favors an individual to help another species at a cost to its own reproduction. Traditional models for the evolution of altruism between species focus on the genetic relatedness between the original donor and the recipients of return benefits from the mutualistic partner species. A more general model is analyzed here that focuses on the synergistic effects between partner species caused by genetic variability. The model shows that the spread of altruism is enhanced by spatial correlations between species in the genetic tendency to give aid to partners. These spatial correlations between species are similar to the kin selection coefficients of relatedness that determine the course of social evolution within species. The model also shows that natural selection and ecological dynamics can create genetic correlations between neighbors of different species, even when the initial spatial distributions of the species are uncorrelated. Genetic correlations between species may play an important role in the origin and maintenance of altruism between species.

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine 92717.

Abstractions

Psychology research abstracts

SDO & gender
SDO + RWA
SDO vs RWA

RWA, SDO,

SDO

SDO: Social dominance orientation is a personality variable that is measured on the SDO Scale, which measures an individual's attitudes toward social hierarchy. SDO is conceptualised as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination and domination. High Social Dominance Orientation is strongly correlated with conservative political views, and opposition to programs and policies that aim to promote equality.

Altemeyer's research suggests that high SDO scorers are personally competitive and are also somewhat Machiavellian (manipulative and amoral). High-SDO individuals tend to gravitate toward hierarchy-enhancing jobs and institutions, such as law enforcement, that are themselves hierarchically structured vis-a-vis individuals within them.

Males tend to have higher SDO scores than females, and are also observed to be more socially hierarchical.

Refs:

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.

Sibley et al.: "Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and Interactive Effects" in Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2006.

Sidanius, Jim and Pratto, Felicia (2001). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SDO & gender

Social dominance orientation and gender: the moderating role of gender identity.

Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):187-98.

Wilson MS, Liu JH.

The aim of this research was to investigate the claim that gender differences in levels of social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), a personality variable measuring a general predisposition towards anti-egalitarianism, are essentially invariant (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Previous findings have indicated that (regardless of covariate) males display higher levels of SDO than females. Two studies were conducted to test the expectation (derived from social identity theory) that the gender-SDO relationship would be moderated by strength of gender group identification. Both samples (150 non-students and 163 students) completed the full SDO(6) measure, and measures of gender group identification. Consistent with predictions, strength of gender identification was found to moderate the gender-SDO relationship, such that increasing group identification was associated with increasing SDO scores for males, and decreasing SDO for females. This result raises questions concerning the theoretical basis of social dominance theory, and whether gender group membership should be accorded a different status from other 'arbitrary-set' group memberships.

School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Marc.Wilson@vuw.ac.nz

Comment in:
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):199-206; discussion 215-23.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003 Jun;42(Pt 2):207-13; discussion 215-23.



Why are men more likely to support group-based dominance than women? The mediating role of gender identification.

Br J Soc Psychol. 2004 Jun;43(Pt 2):287-97.

Dambrun M, Duarte S, Guimond S.

Arguing from a sociobiological perspective, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have shown that the male/female difference in social dominance orientation (SDO) is largely invariant across cultural, situational and contextual boundaries. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of Social Dominance Theory (SDT) by contrasting it with a model derived from Social Identity Theory (SIT). More specifically, while SIT predicts that gender identification mediates the effect of gender on SDO, SDT predicts the reverse. According to SDT, the degree to which men and women endorse status legitimizing ideology should determine to what extent they identify with their gender group. Using structural equation modelling, the results provide strong support for the SIT model and no support for SDT predictions. Implications of these results for social dominance theory and its sociobiologically based invariance hypothesis are discussed.

Université Blaise Pascal, France dambrun@srvpsy.univ-bpclermont.fr

.

SDO vs RWA

The motivational bases of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: relations to values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005 Oct;31(10):1425-34.

Cohrs JC, Moschner B, Maes J, Kielmann S.

Research suggests that different motivational dynamics underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These differences may be framed in the theory of basic human values. RWA may trace back to conservation versus openness-to-change values, and SDO to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values. Based on a large-scale German survey, associations of RWA and SDO with personal values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, were analyzed. Results indicated that RWA related more strongly than SDO to conservation values and threat-related attitudes toward Islam as an expression of the motivational goals of social control and security, whereas RWA and SDO related equally to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and concern for negative consequences of military action as an expression of the motivational goal of altruistic concern. Thus, the motivational bases of RWA and SDO appear to be only partly different.

Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Social Psychology Section, Germany. crcohrs@phil.uni-erlangen.de


Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups.

Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006 May;32(5):684-96.

Duckitt J.

A dual-process model of individual differences in prejudice proneness proposes that Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will influence prejudice against particular outgroups through different motivational mechanisms. RWA should cause negative attitudes toward groups seen as threatening social control, order, cohesion, and stability, such as deviant groups, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through perceived threat from them. SDO should cause negative attitudes toward groups that activate competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, such as socially subordinate groups low in power and status, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through competitiveness toward them. Findings from four student samples that assessed attitudes toward seven social groups selected as likely to vary systematically in social threat and social subordination supported these predictions. The findings have implications for reconciling intergroup and individual difference explanations of prejudice and for interventions to reduce prejudice.

Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand. j.duckitt@auckland.ac.nz

SDO + RWA

SDO + RWA

Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities.

J Soc Psychol. 2004 Aug;144(4):421-47.

Altemeyer B.

The author considered the small part of the population whose members score highly on both the Social Dominance Orientation scale and the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. Studies of these High SDO-High RWAs, culled from samples of nearly 4000 Canadian university students and over 2600 of their parents and reported in the present article, reveal that these dominating authoritarians are among the most prejudiced persons in society. Furthermore, they seem to combine the worst elements of each kind of personality, being power-hungry, unsupportive of equality, manipulative, and amoral, as social dominators are in general, while also being religiously ethnocentric and dogmatic, as right-wing authoritarians tend to be. The author suggested that, although they are small in number, such persons can have considerable impact on society because they are well-positioned to become the leaders of prejudiced right-wing political movements.

Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. altemey@cc.umanitoba.ca

And Adam Created YHWH

musekiteer

First and foremost, I believe that rationality is the only route to truth. So, I became an atheist and studied science. (In my case, these are connected. However, they are not necessarily connected.) Creationists and fundamentalists drove me to anti-theism.

Second, I think that secular humanism is the only hope for peace, and that compassion is the best criterion for assessing morality. So, I have became anti-religion.

Fundamentalism is a menace on the planet. It is a menace to its adherents. It is a menace to non-adherents. It is a menace to life, limb, emotional-health, and rationality. Fundamentalism, and its supporting religions, have to go.