PSYCHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM VS. BIOLOGICAL ALTRUISM

23 Pages·2005·0.16 MB·English

PSYCHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM VS. BIOLOGICAL
ALTRUISM: NARROWING THE GAP WITH THE
BALDWIN EFFECT
Mahesh Ananth
Department of History, Philosophy and Political Science, Chicago State University,
Chicago,Illinois,USA.
Mailing Address: 9501 S. King Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60628. Phone: [phone]-
2414.Email:[email protected]
Received8June2004,revised12January2005,accepted20June2005
ABSTRACT
Thispaperdefendsthepositionthatthesupposedgapbetweenbiologicalaltruismandpsy-
chologicalaltruismisnotnearlyaswideassomescholars(e.g.,ElliottSober)insist.Crucialtothis
defenseistheuseofJamesMarkBaldwin’sconceptsof“organicselection”and“socialheredity”
toassistinrevealingthatthegapbetweenbiologicalandpsychologicalaltruismismoreofasmall
lacuna.Specifically,thispaperarguesthatontogeneticbehavioraladjustments,whicharecrucialto
individualsurvivalandreproduction,arealsocrucialtospeciessurvival.Inparticular,itisargued
thathumanpsychologicalaltruismisproducedandmaintainedbyvarioussortsofmimicryand
self-reflectionintheaidofbothindividualandspeciessurvival.Theupshotofthisanalysisisthat
itispossibletoofferanaccountofpsychologicalaltruismthatiscloselytetheredtobiological
altruismwithoutreducingentirelytheformertothelatter.
1. INTRODUCTION
How do non-human organisms develop the traits that they do? Given that no bio-
logicaltraitorbehavioralcapacitydevelopsindependentlyofenvironmentalfactorsand
that development involves complex interactions among genes and between genes and
environments,thequestionposedhasproventobeanotoriouslycomplicatedone.1Con-
siderfurthertheissueofwhetheritispossibletounderstandhowthehumanorganism
developsitscomplextraitsandbehaviorsgiventheenvironment/genematrix.Ifthelead-
ingquestionconcerningthedetailsofnon-humananimalbehaviorshasbeenadifficult
oneforbiologistsandethologiststoanswersufficiently,onecanimaginetheamountof
confusionwhensimilarconcernsshifttohumanbehaviorsandthecorrespondingpsy-
chologicalstates.Historically,onesuchcomplexbehaviorinbothnon-humananimals
andhumansthathasbeenofgreatinteresttoscholarsinmanyfieldsofinquiryisaltruism.
Elliott Sober, in particular, has written a number of articles and books attempting
to elucidate the problems that have plagued this discussion on altruism (Sober, 1988,
1Ananthakrishnan(1970:241)makesthispointclearwithrespecttoethology:“Field
studyofanimalshasattractedfewerstudentsinouruniversities.Itinvolvescarefulob-
servationwhichistimeconsumingandthereismuchdifficultyindealingwithorganisms
whichshowabehaviour;thelatterobviouslyrestrictsthescopeofstudiesandcallfor
specializedapproaches.”
ActaBiotheoretica(2005)53:217–239 (cid:1)C Springer2005
218 M. ANANTH
1993a:199–216,1993b,1994;SoberandWilson1998:17–54and296–327).Hisanalysis
in these works is two-fold: (1) He makes an effort to “disentangle” concepts such as
biological altruism and psychological altruism, both of which he claims have been
impreciselyusedinmanyarguments;and(2)afterexplainingthedistinctionsbetween
theaboveconcepts,Soberdiscusseswhetherandhowtheseconceptsarerelatedtoeach
other. Although Sober does not rule out the possibility of an evolutionary explanation
of psychological altruism, he does appear skeptical of this possibility for two reasons
(Sober,1993a:210–11):
(1) Humanpsychologicalaltruismisaboutpreferencestructures,whilebiological
altruismissingledoutbydifferencesinreproductivesuccess(fitness).
(2) Thehumanmindshouldnotbeconsidered“asamerepassiveimplementation
ofevolutionaryimperatives.”
Thispaperwillexplore,throughSober’swork,someofthedetailsoftheevolutionary
accountofaltruisticbehaviorknownasbiologicalaltruismandthehumanconventional
sense of ‘altruism’ known as psychological altruism.2 I will proceed in the following
manner.First,Iwillprovideabriefhistoryofthedebateonaltruismthatwillculminate
withanaccountoftheproblemunderconsideration.Second,Iwillprovideananalysis
ofSober’sdistinctionbetweenpsychologicalaltruismandbiologicalaltruismandhow
heappliesthisdistinctiontotheproblemunderconsideration.3 Third,Iwillshowthat
Sober’sdistinctionbetweenpsychologicalaltruismandbiologicalaltruismisneither(1)
necessarilyassharpasSoberconsidersnor(2)thatthisdistinctionnecessarilyvindicates
the impossibility of an evolutionary explanation of psychological altruism. Finally, I
willargue,employingatheoryknownasthe“BaldwinEffect,”thatboththebehavioral
adjustments that the human organism makes in its lifetime and how such adjustments
are both retained and transmitted to its descendants are part of what an evolutionary
accountofhumanpsychologicalaltruismshouldreflect.Fromsuchaperspective,Iwill
arguethathumanpsychologicalaltruismismorecloselytetheredtohuman/non-human
biologicalaltruismthansomehaveconsidered.4
An interesting implication of this line of reasoning is that Sober’s account of psy-
chological altruism will be couched within a general pluralistic framework of human
other-regardingbehavior.Importantly,whenIclaimthatthe“gap”betweenpsychologi-
calandbiologicalaltruismcanbenarrowed,Iammakingtwoclaims:(1)theseconcepts
arenotasconceptuallydistinctasSobersuggestsand(2)thatbiologicalaltruismis(in
2Note that ‘biological altruism’ refers to other-regarding behavior in both humans
andothernon-humananimals,while‘psychologicalaltruism’refersonlytotheother-
regardingbehaviorofhumans.Seefootnote4.
3Anotetothereader:Sober’sdefinitionsofbothkindsofaltruismarecontroversial.In
thispaper,Iwillnotattemptdirectlytochallengethem.Rather,Iwilltakethemasgiven,
andfocusmycriticismsontheimplicationsofhisanalysis.Forageneralphilosophical
discussiononthealtruismdebate,seeWilsonandDugatkin(1992).
4Ihavebeengroupinghumanbiologicalaltruismwithnon-humanbiologicalaltruism.
I will take it for granted that this is a reasonable move, given our shared evolutionary
historywithothernon-humanspecies.Thissortofbiologicalaltruismwouldberelated
to the basic shared biology associated with the basic capacity for shared emotional
commitment.ThistopicoftheevolutionofcommitmentisdiscussedinNesse(2001).
PSYCHOLOGICALALTRUISMVS. BIOLOGICALALTRUISM 219
part)causallyrelatedtopsychologicalaltruism(andpotentiallyvice-versa,iftheBaldwin
effectisthoughttobeplausible)—thatis,naturalselectionforbiologicalaltruismgen-
eratespsychologicalaltruismasamechanism.Theresultwillbeapossiblenarrowing
ofthegapbetweenhumanpsychologicalaltruismandbiologicalaltruism.
2. ALTRUISM:ABRIEFHISTORYANDTHEPROBLEM
Whenabeesacrificesitslifeforthesakeofthehiveofwhichitisapart,thereisasense
in which its sacrifice is thought of as “altruistic.” That is, examples of altruism reveal
behaviorsthatcostthedonortime,effort,life,orotherresourcesforthesakeofsome
other recipient. This type of other-regarding behavior is quite common in the natural
world. The sacrifices of social insects, thump warnings of beavers, sharing of blood
amongst vampire bats, primate grooming rituals, and human other-regarding behavior
forbothimmediatefamilyandstrangersarebutafewexamples(GriffithsandSterelny,
1999:Ch.8;Ridley,1996:Ch.12).
Yet,fromthetraditionalevolutionaryperspective,altruismisadifficultpilltoswal-
low, because behaving altruistically lowers the altruist’s fitness relative to those who
arerecipientsofsuchbehavior.Indeed,onthetraditionalview,naturalselectionshould
disfavor or exploit altruism for the simple reason that selfish individuals will pass on
their “selfish genes” to subsequent generations. After enough life cycles have passed,
veryfewaltruists(ifany)willremain.Thequestion,then,iswhywouldanyindividual
organism—humanorotherwise—behaveinsuchawayastoincurseriouscoststoitself
whilebenefitingsomeothercreature(s)?Darwinwasacutelyawareoftheproblemand
addresseditdirectly:“hewhowasreadytosacrificehislife,asmanyasavagehasbeen,
rather than betray his comrades, would leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature”
(Darwin,1882:163).5
Still,‘humanpsychologicalaltruism’frequentlyreferstothebestowalofabenefitby
oneperson(adonor)toanother(arecipient)inaselflessway.Thatis,whenpsychological
altruistsexpressconcernforthewelfareofothers,theydosowithoutanyexpectationof
reciprocity(blooddonationisusedbyDawkins,1989:230).Giventhathumansarealso
theproductofevolutionaryprocesses,however,itseemsreasonabletosuggestthatthe
moreconventionalideaofhumanpsychologicalaltruismoughttobeunderstoodinterms
of biological altruism.6 Yet, to bring human psychological altruism within the fold of
biologicalaltruismwouldbetoignoretheconventionalsenseof‘psychologicalaltruism’.
5Michael Ruse (1998: 445) succinctly makes the point as follows: “If one has two
organisms,oneputtingeffortintothewelfareofothersandtheotherdevotingitslabours
exclusively to its own end (although it may accept the aid of others), then, all other
thingsbeingequal,thealtruismisdoomedtorapidevolutionaryextinction.Selectionis
ashort-termprocess,inthatitdoesnotthinkofthelong-rangegains.Eventhoughthe
group may benefit in the long-run from the altruist’s behavior, selection will never let
genesforself-sacrificegetestablished.”
6Thiscouldbebywayofkin-selection(Hamilton,1964,1975;Wade,1980),reciprocal
altruism(Trivers,1971;Skyrms,1996;MaynardSmith;1964,1982),orgroupselection
(Darwin, 1882; Wynne-Edwards, 1962; Sober 1993a, 1994; Sober and Wilson, 1998;
Queller,1992).
220 M. ANANTH
Is it possible to include the conventional sense of ‘human psychological altruism’
withintheframeworkofhuman/non-humanbiologicalaltruism?Tobesure,thisquestion
hasgeneratedagreatdealofcontroversyandconfusiondatingasfarbackasDarwin’s
ownreflectionsonthesubject(Darwin,1882:82–93;Bradie,1994:15–55).Primarily,
the issue of the relationship between human psychological altruism and human/non-
humanbiologicalaltruismislocatedinamoregeneralconcernaboutwhatdegreethe
fundamental genetic principles of evolutionary adaptation can be applied to the social
behaviorofhumans.Thequestioncouldbeframedasfollows:towhatextentcanresults
derived from the study of biological altruism in human and non-human animals be
extendedtoananalysisofhumanpsychologicalaltruism?Isuggestthatthefollowing
argumentmayhelptosetupwhathasproventobeaturbulentdebate:
P1 Either it is possible that the gap between human/non-human biological altru-
ismandpsychologicalaltruismisnarroworthegapbetweenhuman/non-human
biologicalaltruismandpsychologicalaltruismiswide.
P2 Ifthegapbetweenhuman/non-humanbiologicalaltruismandpsychologicalaltru-
ismiswide,thenitmustbethecasethatpsychologicalaltruism(unlikebiological
altruism)istheproductofcausesperipheraltoevolutionbynaturalselection.
P3 Itisnotnecessarilythecasethatpsychologicalaltruismistheproductofcauses
tangentialtoevolutionbynaturalselection.
P4 Itfollowsthatitisnotnecessarilythecasethatthegapbetweenhuman/non-human
biologicalaltruismandpsychologicalaltruismiswide.
C1 Therefore,itispossiblethatthegapbetweenhuman/non-humanbiologicalaltru-
ismandpsychologicalaltruismisnarrow.
AssumingthatP1andP2arenotthemselvesproblematicintheaboveargument,I
submitthattheheartofthealtruismdebatehasbeenunderstoodintermsofexplainingthe
relationshipbetweentheother-regardingbehaviorofhuman/non-humananimalsandthe
other-regardingbehaviorandconcomitantpsychologyofhumansinP3andwhetherthis
explanationwillsupporttheconclusion.Restated,Iwanttoknowwhetherthebiological
explanation of human/non-human animal altruistic behavior can be extrapolated onto
humanpsychologicalaltruisticbehaviorsoastodeterminethesoundnessoftheabove
argument.Some(RuseandWilson,1986;Wilson,1975;Richards,1987)thinkthatthe
explanation of human/non-human biological altruism can be extrapolated onto human
psychological altruism; moreover, they consider the gap between human/non-human
biological and human psychological altruism to be negligible, given the truth of P3.
Others(Sober,1993a;Kitcher,1985;Nagel,1978:198–205),moreconservatively,insist
thatitisnotpossibleforsuchanextrapolationtobeachieved.Theyarguethatthegapis
substantial,becauseP3isfalse.Inthisessay,ElliottSoberwillstandastheexemplarof
thiscamp.7Ihopetoshowthatamiddlegroundbetweenthesetwoextremepositionsis
defensible.
7Of course, the accounts of the other members in this camp will differ in the details,
buttheconclusionstheyreacharesimilar.Notably,SoberandWilson(1998:296–337)
seemtoalignthemselvesmuchmorecloselytothepluralisticpictureIargueforinthis
paper,althoughtheydonottakeanydefinitivestance.Mostofthistextisdesignedto
refutetheplausibilityofpsychologicalegoism.
PSYCHOLOGICALALTRUISMVS. BIOLOGICALALTRUISM 221
3. SOBER’SDISTINCTIONBETWEENPSYCHOLOGICAL
ALTRUISMANDBIOLOGICALALTRUISM
Sober distinguishes between vernacular altruism (hereafter referred to as psycho-
logicalaltruism)andevolutionaryaltruism(biologicalaltruism)asameansofarguing
thatthereisadistinctgapbetweenthetwoconcepts.AccordingtoSober(Sober,1988:
76–78),therearefourelementaryfeaturesofpsychologicalaltruists:
(1) theyhaveminds,
(2) theyhavenoconcernwithregardtotheirownreproductivesuccess,
(3) theymakenocomparativeanalysisbetweenacts,and
(4) when they confer benefits upon others, they do so in a non-instrumental
manner.
Inevolutionarybiology,ontheotherhand,altruismhasaratherdifferentmeaning
than its psychological counterpart that was just considered above. Biological altruism
hasbeenunderstoodasafunctionofbenefitsconferredbysomeindividualsuponothers
that simultaneously results in the reduction of the fitness and reproductive success of
thoseimpartingthebenefits.Biologicalaltruism,incontrasttopsychologicalaltruism,
hasthefollowingcharacterizationinSober’sanalysis(1988):
(1) “reproductivebenefits”istheonlycriterion,
(2) amindisnot(necessarily)acriterion,
(3) acost/benefitanalysisandcomparisonbetweenactsarealwayspartof“repro-
ductivebenefits.”
ThepointSoberistryingtomakeclearhereistwo-fold:(1)Biologicalaltruismisa
comparativeterm,whereaspsychologicalaltruismisconcernedwithparticularmotives
ofindividuals.Thatis,psychologicalaltruismisnotacomparativeterm(Sober,1988:
77). Deciding whether an organism is a biological altruist requires assessing not only
thebenefitsitconfersonitsconspecificsbutalsowhatitsconspecificsyieldinreturn.
(2)Biologicalaltruism,unlikepsychologicalaltruism,shouldnotbethoughtofassyn-
onymouswithdonation.Donationissimplythegivingawayorconferringofbenefits.
Without a comparison of benefits donated and benefits received, determining whether
anorganismisabiologicalaltruistisnotpossible.InSober’sownwords,“every[bio-
logical]altruistisadonor,butnoteverydonorisa[biological]altruist”(Sober,1988:
83).
Having made clear Sober’s distinction between psychological altruism and bi-
ological altruism, it can be asked how the two concepts might be related. Re-
stated, what can be said about the relationship between human psychological altru-
ism and non-human biological altruism (P3)? Sober offers two interesting possibil-
ities. The first possibility is that human psychological altruism is an evolutionary
“spin-off.” That is, human psychological altruism was not a trait governed by nat-
ural selection, but a property that was made manifest as a result of selection for
other mental properties. This view would suggest that human psychological altruism
has no direct genetic component and is not directly adaptive (P3 is false). Unfortu-
nately, Sober does not explore the details of what such a spin-off theory would look
like.
ThesecondpossibilitySoberoffers,inthespiritofDarwin’sownsuggestion,isthat
humanpsychologicalaltruismisatraitthatwasunderthecontrolofevolutionaryforces.
Thismeans,forSober,thathumanpsychologicalaltruismisatraitthatisadaptive,hasa
222 M. ANANTH
geneticcomponent,andistheproductofgroupselection(Sober,1988:95–96).8 Sober
proposes that if human psychological altruism was under the control of evolutionary
forces,thenagroupselectionistaccount(SoberandWilson1994,1998)wouldbenec-
essary to give support to a connection between biological altruism and psychological
altruismashedescribesthem:
Supposeforthesakeofargumentthatwehaveevolvedbygroupselectionand
thatmanyofourbehaviorsexistbecausetheyarebeneficialforthegrouptowhich
we belong. How might Mother Nature have wired us up to get us to behave in
thisway?Thatis,whichproximalmechanismscouldproducebehaviorsthathave
thissortofdistalexplanation?Onepossibilityisthatweshouldbepsychological
altruists. We might have preferences concerning the welfare of others and we
mightinvariouscircumstancesaccordthosepreferencesstrongerweightthanthe
preferenceswehaveaboutourownwelfare(Sober,1993a:211).
Yet, Sober does not take seriously the above account. He offers the following
reason:
Thereisanotherrolethemindcanplay,however,onethatIthinksociobiologists
have underestimated. A characteristic may evolve for a given evolutionary rea-
son,butthenhaveconsequencesthatwouldnotbeatallforeseeableifonlythe
evolutionaryexplanationwastakenintoaccount(Sober,1993a:203).
Sober’smisgivingsreflectthefactthathisaccountofpsychologicalaltruismrequires
thatthetruthofP3remainssufficientlydubiousinordertoavoidthepitfallsofmanyofthe
reductionist/adaptationist sociobiological accounts. No doubt, Sober’s concerns above
shouldbetakenseriously.9 Itiseasytoseehowthestrategyofrelyingonevolutionary
considerationscouldbeabused.Forexample,theremaybenoobviousdistalexplanation
ofhowhumanshavedevelopedtheabilitytoplaymusic,writepoetry,orcreatecomplex
mathematicalorlogicalsystems.Thesecharacteristics,whichareuniquetothehuman
organism,mayverywellbeunexpectedby-productsofahighlyevolvedbrain.Still,the
possibilityofdefendingtheoriginofhumanaltruisminthewaythatSoberproposesin
his second possibility is worth exploring. Let us turn directly to the “Baldwin Effect”
forsuchaplausibleexplanation.
8SoberandWilson’s(1994and1998)theoryofgroupselectionanditsrelationshipto
altruism(humanornon-human)iscontroversialandthetopicofmuchdiscussionwithin
thephilosophyofbiology.Thedetailsofthistheorycannotbeaddressedhere.Suffice
it to say, Sober appears to be in favor of the first possibility where he views human
altruismmorealongthelinesofanevolutionary“spin-off.”Foranattempttosettlethe
scoreastowhetherornotSoberandWilson’stheoryofgroupselectionisreally“group
selection,”seeOkasha(2001).Also,seeWilliams’(1966:Ch.4)classicdiscussionon
thepossibilityofgroupselection.
9This is not to suggest that it is commonplace amongst scientists (e.g., behavioral
ecologists) to treat every human feature as an adaptation—so-called “just-so stories.”
Thepointissimplythatoneshouldbecarefulaboutwhathumanfeaturescanreasonably
beincludedundertheumbrellaofbiologicalevolution.Forthosewhoareskepticalabout
such abuses, see Kitcher’s (1985) careful analysis of many who have tried to extend
evolutionarytheorytoofarwithrespecttohumanbehavior.
PSYCHOLOGICALALTRUISMVS. BIOLOGICALALTRUISM 223
4. THEBALDWINEFFECT
In1896,thepsychologist/developmentalbiologistJamesMarkBaldwinproposeda
theorycalled“OrganicSelection”asaneededintegralelementofDarwin’sprinciples
of variation and selection (Baldwin, 1896, 1980). In the past decade, there has been a
concertedeffortonthepartofsomescholarstorevivesomeofBaldwin’sinsights,which
theyconsiderprovideanaccurateaccountofthetempoandnatureofevolutionarychange.
Theseinsightshavebeenlooselybroughttogetherunderthetitleof“TheBaldwinEffect.”
ThissectionwillprovidetheelementsoftheBaldwinEffectbywayofBaldwin’sown
thoughts and some of the interpretations that have emerged out of the contemporary
Baldwinian resurrection. The subsequent section will then use the Baldwin Effect to
makesenseofhumanpsychologicalandbiologicalaltruism.
To start, Baldwin was grappling with how to make sense of the modifications an
organism undergoes in its lifetime (ontogenetic variations) and what, if any, relation-
ship exists between such modifications and the historical development of the species
(phylogeny) to which a particular organism belongs. With respect to humans, ontoge-
neticvariationswouldincludebothmentalphenomenaandbehavior,whichaccording
toBaldwinshouldbepartofanaccurateunderstandingofhumanevolutionarychange.10
Indeed, for Baldwin, variations in learned behavior are the catalysts for both develop-
mentalandevolutionarychange(Depew,2003).11ThefollowingpassagefromBaldwin
10ItisworthnotingthatDarwin(1996:97)alsogaveimportancetobehaviorasacatalyst
toevolutionarychange.Hetellsus:“Itmustbeadmittedthathabitswhethercongenitalor
acquiredbypractice“sometimes”oftenbecomeinherited:instincts,influence,equally
with structure, the preservation of animals; therefore selection must, with changing
conditionstendtomodifytheinheritedhabitsofanimals.Ifthisbeadmitteditwillbe
foundpossiblethatmanyofthestrangestinstinctsmaybethusacquired.”Itwouldnotat
allbesurprisingifBaldwinwasinfluencedbythispassage,althoughthereisnotdirect
evidencetosuggestthathewas.
11ThehistoricalcontextofthisdiscussionisthatBaldwinwaschallengingthesupport-
ersofLamarckianinheritanceof“acquiredcharacteristics”(e.g.,HerbertSpencerand
GeorgeRomanes).Lamarckandmanyofhissupportersthoughtthatchangesintheex-
ternalenvironmentwouldcausechangesintheinternalstructureoforganisms.Baldwin
offeredjusttheoppositeview.Heputforththatanorganism’scongenitalvariations,to
theextentthattheyinfluencewhatthatorganismdoesinitsbehavior,physiology,and
morphology,areatthesametimechangingtheorganism’senvironmentandtheorganism
itself in the short-run, which in turn can modify the make-up of the species to which
theorganismbelongsinthelong-runthroughnaturalselection.Also,Baldwinwasre-
spondingtopreformationistswhoheldontotheviewthattheseedorgermlinecontains
aminiaturereplicaoftheparent(e.g.,H.Boerhaave,J.Swammerdam,andG.Cuvier).
AbriefdiscussionofpreformationismisavailableinDepewandWeber(1995:41–42).
Lastly,itshouldbepointedoutthatC.L.Morgan(1896:305)sharedasimilarviewto
that of Baldwin. With respect to the role of learning and evolution, he vaguely states,
“variationdoesseeminsomecasestohavefollowedthelinesofadaptivemodification,
soastosuggestsomesortofconnectionbetweenthem.”SeealsoSimpson(1953)and
Galef(1987)forcriticaldiscussionsofthishistory.
224 M. ANANTH
revealsthecoreofwhatisnowbeingcalledtheBaldwinEffect:
The variations which we find available for physical inheritance are congenital
changes; the utility of individual modifications is confined to their influence in
screening,supplementingandpreservingthenaturalequipmentofindividualsand
species,andthusdirectingthecourseofevolution.Wehavenoreasontodepart
from this position in the matter of mental variations and the education of the
individual.Mentalcharactersalreadycongenitalareinherited;andtheplasticity,
whichintelligencecarrieswithit,isacongenitalcharacter.Thereisnoevidence
of the transmission of the results of mental education and experience; but both
physicalandmentalendowmentsandthevariationsarisinginthemaresubjectto
continuousphysicaltransmission.SofartheconsistentapplicationofDarwinian
principles.(Baldwin,1980:27–28).
Baldwin notes that ontogenetic changes aid in maintaining and modifying genetic
endowmentsandproducingpotentiallyusefulvariationonwhichselectioncanwork.In
thesameway,hethinksthatmentalvariationsandeducation,whicharepartofhuman
ontogeneticdevelopment,alsoassistininfluencinggeneticendowmentandvariation.As
Downesnotes(2003:35–36),“His[Baldwin’s]intuitionwasthatwhatmadeanorganism
successfulwasthewholeconstellationofitsphysiologicalandbehavioraltraits,whether
the behavior was acquired or instinctual.” In contemporary parlance, Baldwin thought
thattheunitofselectionwastheindividualorganism—bothitscongenitaltraitsandthe
non-congenitalfeaturesacquiredduringdevelopment.
Theimmediatequestionthatcomestomindishowcanthemodificationsjustnow
describedbesecuredinanorganism’slifetime?Therearetwopartstotheanswerofthis
question.First,istheideathatBaldwinlabeledthe“lawofuseanddisuse”(Baldwin,
1896:444).12‘Use’referstomovementsandbehaviorsthatprovefavorabletoanorgan-
ismandarethuscontinuallyrepeatedandeventuallyretained.‘Disuse’referstothose
movementsandbehaviorsthatareharmfultoanorganismandareeliminatedbyalack
ofreinforcement.
Thesecondmeansofsecuringontogeneticmodifications,accordingtoBaldwin,is
throughimitation.Baldwindefinesanimitativereactionas,“onewhichnormallyrepeats
itsownstimulus”(Baldwin,1894:48).Anexamplewillhelpfleshoutthedetailsofthis
ratherbroaddefinition.LetusconsideronespeciesofDarwin’sfamousfinches,thelarge
groundfinchthatinhabitstheGala´pagosIslands.LetusfurthersupposethatElNin˜ois
in full swing in the Gala´pagos Islands and, as a result, resources are scarce. Although
most of the large ground finch’s food resources have been destroyed by the turbulent
weather,thereareafewkindsofnutsstillavailableforconsumption.Unfortunately,the
shellsontheremainingnutsareveryhard.Thelargegroundfinchhasneitherthebeak
strengthnortheforcetocrackopenthenutinordertogetatitsmeat.Supposethefinch
randomlyattemptsamultitudeofstrategiestocrackopenthenut,butallattemptsfail.
Finally,aftermucheffortthegroundfinchhappenstopushanutneararock,whichit
12ThisisnotanexhaustiveaccountofallthefactorsBaldwinthoughtwereinvolvedin
ontogeneticdevelopment.Forexample,Baldwinalsocategorizesthedifferentwaysthat
ontogenetic modifications can occur (See Baldwin, 1896: 443–444). Of these factors,
Baldwinconsidersimitationtobethemostimportantinassociationwiththe“lawofuse
anddisuse.”Thus,specialattentionwillbegiventothisfactorofimitation.
PSYCHOLOGICALALTRUISMVS. BIOLOGICALALTRUISM 225
thenusesasa“plate”onwhichtocrackopenthenut(asopposedtothesofterground).
Theresultisthatthenutcracksopen.13
Keeping in mind the “law of use and disuse,” Baldwin would affirm that for the
development (or survival) of the ground finch in our example it is crucial that useful
reactions,suchaspushingthenuttowardtherock,berepeatedinorderto“outweighthe
reactionswhicharedamaginganduseless”(Baldwin,1894:29).Ifreactionssimilarto
thoseperformedbythegroundfinchareimmediatelyduplicated,thesereactionswillbe
retained(duetotheirusefulness)andwillsustainthedevelopmentofthebird.Thus,in
general,weshouldexpectthatnaturalselectionwillfavorgenotypesthatalloworganisms
thecapacitytoreactadaptivelywiththeirsurroundingsanddisfavorthoseorganismswith
lessadaptability.Baldwincallsthesekindsofrepeatedreactionsimitativereactions.14
Baldwinconcludesthatthepurposeofimitationistofightoffdifficultiesthatarise
in the short-run and keep the organism alive so that natural selection can come along
in the long-run and turn those (or other related) ontogenetic adaptations into congeni-
talinstincts.AsDepewsummarizes(2003:8),“throughtheactionofnaturalselection
working on the whole organisms, ontogenetic adaptations will eventually be fixed by
germ-lineshiftsthatreducethecontingenciestowhichpresumablyadaptivelearnedbe-
haviorisexposed.”Baldwinstressesjustthiskindofactiveparticipationoftheorganism
asitattemptstoovercomelocalenvironmentalstressesandhowthisaffectsthespecies,
respectively:
Theimitativefunction,byusingmuscularco-ordination,supplementsthem,se-
cures adaptations, keeps the creature alive, prevents the ‘incidence of natural
selection’, and so gives the species all the time necessary to get the variations
13IhaverecentlydiscoveredthatDavidPapineau(2004:11–12)usesasimilarexampleby
wayoftheherring-gullpracticeofopeningshellfishbydroppingthemonhardsurfaces.
14InBaldwin’ssystem,therearethreekindsofimitativereactions,rangingfrommost
rudimentarytohighlycomplex.Allthreekindsaredesignedto“preventtheincidenceof
naturalselection”andreflectacomplexityinconsciousness.Theyarecategorizedas:(1)
simplecontractility,(2)psychologicalorcorticalimitations,and(3)plasticorsecondarily
subcortical imitations (Baldwin, 1894: 48–50). The first kind of imitative reaction is
simplythecontingentorchancevariationsthatarecopiedduetotheirusefulness(e.g.,
thegroundfinch).Thiskindofimitationdoesnotrequireanykindofcomplexintellectual
stimulationforitsuseandretention.Thesecondkindofimitativereaction,psychological
imitation,isthecopyingofactionsorwordsofanotheruponobservation.Suchimitations
requirearudimentarykindofconsciousness.Thethirdclassofimitativereactionsfalls
underthetitleof“secondarily-subcorticalimitation.”Theseimitationsincludethetwo
previouskindsofstimulus-repeatingreactionsexceptthattheyhavebeentransformed
into habit. That is, actions that were once either the product of accidental copying or
actionsorwordsthatweretheresultoflow-levelconsciouscopyingareretainedthrough
habit. Moreover, the cortical imitations are no longer in direct consciousness due to
habituation.Includedinthiscategoryaremorecomplexsocialphenomenasuchas“the
imitation of facial and emotional expression, moral influence, sympathy, and personal
rapport”(Baldwin,1894:50).NotethatsomeoftheseBaldwinianideasaboutimitation
(andtheevolutionofcultureitself)maybevindicatedbycurrentresearchontheevolution
ofthemirrorneuronsystemsinhumans(SeeRamachandran,2003:126–27).
226 M. ANANTH
required for the full instinctive performance of the function (Baldwin, 1896:
448).
Thus, (in association with the law of use and disuse) it is the ontogenetic mod-
ifications that are retained predominantly through one of the three forms of imita-
tion (see footnote 15) that led Baldwin to give the following definition of ‘Organic
Selection’:
Theaccommodationsandmodificationsoftheindividualserveasasupplement
orscreentohisendowment;andinthecourseoftimetheendowmentfactor,by
variationsimply,withoutresorttotheactualinheritanceofacquiredcharacteris-
tics,comestoitsperfection.Thisresultofthe‘coincidence’ofmodificationand
variation in guiding the course of evolution has been called ‘organic selection’
(Baldwin,1980:18).
Organicselection,then,isBaldwin’stheoryofhoworganismsengageinshort-term
problemsolving.Thatis,‘Organicselection’isthecombinationofcongenitalfactorsin
associationwithnewlysecuredcharacteristics(accommodatedthroughuseanddisuse)
thatallowanorganismtosolveimmediateandpressingproblemsinitsenvironment.In
contrast,thoseorganismsthatmustrelyoncongenitalfactorsthatdonotallowformuch
adaptability,quitefrequently,donotsurvive.Thefurtherquestion,then,ishowdothese
ontogeneticmodificationsrelatetophylogeny?
Baldwin’sanswerastohowontogeneticmodificationsofanorganism(tokens)are
connectedtoitsspecies(types)isclearlystated:
Thevariationswhichwereutilizedforontogeneticadaptationintheearliergen-
eration,beingkeptinexistence,areutilizedmorewidelyinthesubsequentgen-
eration.Congenitalvariations,ontheonehand,arekeptaliveandmadeeffective
bytheiruseforadaptationsinthelifeoftheindividual;and,ontheotherhand,
adaptations become congenital by further progress and refinement of variation
in the same lines of function as those which their acquisition by the individual
calledintoplay(Baldwin,1896:447).
AsawayofillustratingtheBaldwinEffect,twoexamples—onecontrivedandone
actualcase—willbeprovided.First,supposewehaveapopulationofdeer.Assumethat
part of the defense mechanism for this species of deer is its ability to zig-zag while
runningathighspeeds.Now,addanincreaseinpredationinthisenvironment(imagine
thatanewpredatorinvadestheenvironment).Asaresultofthisincreaseinpredation,
a few members of the deer population exhibit the ability to observe their immediate
vicinity while drinking water.15 It turns out that such a behavioral variation is useful
in terms of early detection of predators—an accidental behavioral improvement that
was retained through both imitation and use. According to Baldwin, such variations
representdesignimprovementsiftheyproveusefulandareretainedbytheorganismby
habitandimitation(Baldwin,1894,1896),andareslowlyrefinedaftermanygenerations
15Inmodernparlance,thesekindsofontogeneticchangesfallunderthegenerallabelof
“phenotypeplasticity.”Aphenotypeisthebodyplananorganismhasasaresultofthe
interaction between its genes and its environment. The more malleable an organism’s
phenotypeis,thebettertheorganismisabletoaccommodateandwithstandthe“storm
andstressofthephysicalinfluencesoftheenvironment,andofthechangeswhichoccur
intheenvironment”(Baldwin,1896:447).