Clara B. Jones
Email: foucault03@gmail.com; mapcbj@gmail.com
Twitter: @cbjones1943
Date: 8/28/2022
In many ways, the Social Sciences have a disproportionate & unfortunate influence on Behavioral Ecology, including, Social Biology, some of which follow [in no particular order]:
The Social Sciences Approach to Behavioral Ecology, including, Social Biology, and, Animal Behavior, in general, might be viewed as the Scala Naturae Approach since it centers Homo sapiens as the measure of and pinnacle of Social Evolution, especially, as derived from the purported complexity of human societies driven by higher-order cognitive traits, including, an obsession with "big brains." A fundamental principle of Complexity Theory is that complexity emerges from simple rules [after which it may be acted upon by Natural Selection, in the cases of evolved traits, see Duarte et al., 2011].
The Social Sciences Approach begins with the assumption that humans are complex [contrast with the Major Transitions Approach]. Instead of making the a priori assumption that humans are complex, practitioners of the Social Sciences approach should begin with the null hypothesis, Humans are not complex.
It is common for Anthropologists to suggest that human phenotypic diversity is too complex to figure out ["irreducible complexity" as per Stephen Wolfram] or that it has no adaptive value. One of a scientist's responsibilities is to search for patterns and to "unpack" variation. Social scientists have made no headway on this score. For example, the ideas in the field, "evolutionary cultural Anthropology" are tortuously complex [sic] & obfuscating. This field is an example of investigators of human behavior starting with the assumption that humans are complex, rather than beginning with the above null hypothesis, as well as, simple hypotheses & mechanisms.
The Social Sciences Approach [Scala Naturae Approach] is not based on 1st Principles [Physics; Ecology (acquisition; consumption; allocation)].
The Social Sciences do not define theory as mathematics, as the Sciences do. In the Social Sciences, theory is, generally, verbal, & many studies are purely descriptive Natural History, without quantitative treatment beyond Descriptive Statistics.
Social Science research is generally not hypothetico-deductive.
Social Science researchers, in Behavioral Ecology, including, Social Biology, are, generally, averse to field experiments, math modeling, & simulation modeling. It is rare to find studies in the previous fields using Individual- [Agent-] Based simulations to conduct experiments.
Social Science researchers have generally not studied Introductory Ecology & Population Ecology taught by specialists. Behavioral Ecologists, including, Social Biologists, are Autecologists & Population Ecologists. Social Scientists, in general, seem unaware of the literature in Ecology, Population Biology, & Social Biology [e.g., EO Wilson's 1971, The Insect Societies, arguably, the greatest book written to date in Animal Behavior]. Even JH Crook's 1964, classic weaver bird monograph, arguably, marking the inception of the field, Behavioral Ecology, seems unknown to the majority of Social Scientists.
Social Science researchers rarely link their work to [population-level] Evolutionary causes & outcomes.
Social Science researchers are fond of Group Selection.
Social Science research rarely uses terminology consistently [e.g., "aggregation" is often used synonymous to "group"].
Terminology in Social Science research is not standardized. To be fair, terminology is not standardized or used consistently in Animal Behavior, generally, including, Behavioral Ecology & Social Biology. For an introductory discussion on "terminology" in the previous fields, see my YouTube video.
Most Social Scientists studying Behavioral Ecology, including, Social Biology, seem to misunderstand WD Hamilton's Rule, rb - c >0, by assuming that the formulation predicts that it is always in Actor's [reproductive] interest to benefit the reproduction of kin.
To my knowledge, where social evolutionary transitions are discussed by Social Scientists [including, Evolutionary Psychologists] at all, the Major Transitions Approach, a general model, has not influenced the Social Sciences, including, Anthropology. Readers are referred to my YouTube video, Mammal Social Evolution: A Major Transitions Approach, for an introduction, as well as, to the first blogpost of this blog.. In the MTA applied to social evolution, Cooperation is the gateway to Complex Sociality [Reproductive Division-of-Labor; Specialization]. In his 2019 book, Genesis, Wilson broadens the definition of "eusocial," limiting it to the character trait, Reproductive Division-of-Labor, & denotes Humans, as well as, some other Mammals as "eusocial." It is important to note that Wilson creates a series of 6 transitions from simple to complex sociality that differ in significant ways from the classical formulation. Wilson's [and, some others'] pinnacle stage of social complexity is "language," consistent with a social scientific, Scala Naturae Approach.
References
Crook JH (1964) The evolution of social organization and visual communication in the weaver birds (Ploceinae). Behaviour Supplement #10: 1-201.
Duarte ANA, Weissing FJ, Pen I, Keller L (2011) An evolutionary perspective on self-organizing division-of-labor in social insects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 42: 91-110.
Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap (Harvard), Cambridge, MA.
Wilson EO (2019) Genesis: the deep origins of societies. Liveright, NY.