Courage, not denial: An interview with Dr. David Buss

By Bernard Chapin
web posted February 9, 2004

Bragging about whom you've studied under does not seem to be
socially acceptable in our new millennium. It seems that such
behaviors belong to a past, objective age. However, a couple of
years ago at a gathering, I heard a young lady with a background
in psychology proudly relay to those around her that she had
studied "under Buss." I was the only one present who knew the
individual to whom she referred and also the importance of her
claim.

Dr. David Buss is one of the most highly regarded names in the
field of evolutionary psychology. He is so well-known that it is
practically impossible to find an evolutionary work that does not
in some way allude to him. Indeed, in the interview that follows,
Dr. Buss mentions, among those researchers who've had the
biggest influence upon him, the names of Leda Cosmides and
John Tooby. It is ironic because in their book (written with
Jerome H. Barkow), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary
Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Dr. Buss contributes
his own chapter and is then mentioned specifically by the two
writers who follow him.

Dr. David Buss received his doctorate from the University of
California, Berkeley in 1981. He then was an Assistant
Professor at Harvard University before taking a position for 11
years at the University of Michigan. Presently, he is a Full
Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas.

He has written works that are have been hugely influential both in
the universities and in popular culture. His most famous works,
The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating and
Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, are
discussed in detail below, and another book, Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love or Sex, examines the
green-eyed monster itself.

Dr. Buss has a style that is erudite but not burdened by excessive
technicality. Through his rigorous methodology, he has provided
the field of evolutionary psychology structure and respect. It is
our good fortune that he can spare the time for this interview.

BC: Dr. Buss, the first thing I wanted to ask you about concerns
the nature of evolutionary psychology. Could you explain to our
readers the meaning of this rather new science?

DDB: Evolutionary psychology represents a theoretical synthesis
of the principles of modern evolutionary theory with principles of
modern psychology. It views the human mind as largely
composed of a set of complex adaptations--information
processing devices designed to solve specific adaptive problems
that are ultimately tributary to survival and reproduction.

Just as the body consists of a large collection of integrated
"organs," each with a specialized function (e.g., a liver to filter
toxins; a heart to pump blood), the mind consists of a large
collection of integrated "mechanisms," each with a specialized
function. Examples include specialized fears of snakes, spiders,
darkness, heights, and strangers--things that were dangerous to
human survival over deep evolutionary time; specialized
preferences for selecting mates; specialized emotions, such as
jealousy, designed to solve problems of mate poaching and mate
defection; specialized cheater-detection mechanisms to solve
problems of social exchange; and dozens or hundreds of others.

The evolutionary process is the only known scientific process
capable of producing complex mechanisms of this sort, so there
is really no alternative for psychology. You can run, but you can't
hide from evolutionary psychology. There is no such thing as
"non-evolutionary psychology," since there are no known causal
processes, other than evolutionary ones, capable of producing
complex organism mechanisms that characterize psychology.

Evolutionary psychology brings a formidable set of theoretical
tools to understanding psychological mechanisms that have been
largely absent from the field of psychology for the past century--
inclusive fitness theory, sexual selection theory, game theory, and
many more.

BC: Your landmark 1989 study of human mating preferences in
37 different cultures is cited by just about everyone in the field.
Was your use of such a large number of cultures a direct attempt
on your part to make the conclusions of evolutionary research
more verifiable? Isn't study design the best way to refute charges
that evolutionary psychology is merely speculation?

DDB: Prior to my 1989 study, there was practically no
systematic empirical research designed to test predictions about
humans from principles of evolution. I knew that psychology had,
and still has, a strong anti-biological bias. This means that the bar
is set quite high for hypotheses anchored in evolutionary biology.

While sweeping generalizations about the effects of "learning" or
"culture" or "socialization" are routinely believed based on the
flimsiest of evidence, well-articulated evolutionary hypotheses
are typically subjected to tremendous skepticism. Thus, when I
set out to test the set of hypotheses about sex differences in
human mate preferences, I knew that I had to go overboard and
document the findings beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why I
set out to study as many cultures as I possibly could.

When I hit 37 cultures located on six continents and five islands,
consisting of 10,047 participants, and the results proved to be so
powerful and consistent, it met my own scientific standard for
believing the hypotheses to be confirmed. I think the study was
critical in helping to establish evolutionary psychology as an
empirical discipline, rather than one involved in speculation or
untested hypotheses. Since 1989, the empirical discipline of
evolutionary psychology has mushroomed in a way that is
extremely gratifying, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

BC: Why does evolutionary psychology evoke such strong
reactions in people? I've noted that when I discuss basic
principles with those who have never heard of it before I am met
with either enthusiasm or anger. There seems to be little in
between. Why might this be so? You are the perfect person to
ask.

DDB: I think the strength of reactions is caused by several
factors. One is religious, since evolutionary psychology threatens
beliefs about divine creation. A second comes from political
ideologies--people have agendas for making the world a better
place, and evolutionary psychology is erroneously believed to be
at odds with social change.

People think "if things like violence or infidelity are rooted in
evolved adaptations, then we are doomed to have violence and
infidelity because they are an unalterable part of human nature.
On the other hand, if violence and infidelity are caused by the ills
of society, by media, by bad parenting, then we can fix these
things and make a better world."

It's what I call the "romantic fallacy": I don't want people to be
like that, therefore they are not like that [interviewer's emphasis].
The thinking is wrong-headed, of course. Knowledge of our
evolved psychological mechanisms gives us more power to
change, if change is desired, not less power.

A third general reason for the hostility to evolutionary psychology
comes from mainstream social science. People have been
brainwashed for years by the silly mainstream theories that
invoke simplistic environmental causes of human behavior, and
many social scientists have made their status and reputation in the
old paradigms. So evolutionary psychology threatens to
undermine their status and prestige, so it is bitterly opposed,
usually with great venom. In this sense, evolutionary psychology
is no different from many other scientific revolutions that are
bitterly opposed at the time, but eventually accepted when
shown to be correct.

BC: Is evolutionary psychology today more accepted on the
American university campus? I recall that on one occasion
before he spoke, there was a poster circulated about Edward O.
Wilson that claimed he was a "Prophet of Right Wing
Patriarchy." Has anything like that ever happened to you?

DDB: I've received occasional hate mail and have been the
target of some malicious gossip, but it's been tremendously
gratifying to see evolutionary psychology become a main part of
the curriculum in many colleges and universities.

Here at the University of Texas, for example, we have an entire
area of the psychology department devoted to Evolutionary
Psychology, with half a dozen faculty members. Harvard
University has recently emerged as an important center for
evolutionary psychology, with key figures such as Steve Pinker
and Marc Hauser.

Most universities now have at least one evolutionary
psychologist, and it's growing all the time. It's still opposed at
some universities, but the general trend is positive. There is no
going back.

BC: Along the same lines, why is evolutionary psychology
misconstrued as having a political orientation? I mean, it shouldn't
be interpreted in such a fashion. Yet I've read evolutionary
psychologists who took great pains to explain to their readers
that they are not political extremists. Why should they have to?
Science describes what is, not what should be or what is fantasy
(but perhaps this is why it offends some).

DDB: Evolutionary psychology, of course, has no political
orientation. All of the key writers in evolutionary psychology
have indeed taken pains to explain that they are describing and
explaining human nature, not offering prescriptions or
justifications.

Evolutionary psychologists have had to do this because they
have been unjustly accused of harboring political agendas.
People are also worried that evolutionary psychology will be
misused to justify certain undesirable behavior--such as "I
couldn't help cheating, it's in my genes." And, of course, there is
no way to prevent scientific knowledge from being used or
misused. But in my view, we are better off with the knowledge
than without it.

Evolutionary psychology has indeed uncovered some disturbing
components of human nature, and people fear those
components. But we really need to know about them, rather than
bury our heads in the sand of ignorance.

BC: Actually, as a response to critics who wrongly label it as
"determinist," can you make an argument that the study of
evolutionary psychology inherently improves the human
condition?

DDS: All efforts at improvement require deep knowledge of the
thing you are trying to improve. Evolutionary psychology
promises to provide that knowledge, at least in some domains
that people care about, such as the psychology of violence.
Evolutionary psychology is a science designed to understand the
causes of human behavior. As such, it is no more or less
"deterministic" than any other approach with the same goal of
understanding causes.

BC: You're releasing an updated version of Evolutionary
Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Is this not indicative
of the discipline's influence increasing? What types of new
research or conclusions have you added to your latest addition?

DDS: My new edition of Evolutionary Psychology (Allyn &
Bacon, 2004) represented a major revision. I had to master five
years of explosive research in many areas--mating, parenting,
kinship, dominance, violence, cooperation, social exchange,
altruism, and many others. It has been extremely gratifying to see
the cumulative progress made in these areas, which is a
testament to the increasing power and influence of the core
framework of evolutionary psychology. The scientific revolution
is coming to fruition.

BC: Your most famous book (indeed the one through which you
first caught my attention), The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of
Human Mating, is also being reissued. This work has crossover
appeal beyond those who are scientifically minded. If you ask
me, it would prove a much better self-help book than many of
those titled as "Self-Help." Have you found that its title and lively
style garnered it unexpected readership among the general
population? What have you added to this latest addition that
would cause somebody like me to buy the updated copy?

DDB: The Evolution of Desire undoubtedly is my most widely
read book. Originally published in 1994, it continued to sell well
in paperback, with no signs of slowing down. Because the field
of human mating had mushroomed in the past decade, I felt that
a major update was in order, and was fortunate that my
publisher, Basic Books, was eager to publish a major revision.

I've added two entirely new chapters to the book: Chapter 11:
Women's Hidden Sexual Strategies, which focuses on the
functions of the female orgasm and why women have affairs; and
Chapter 12: Mysteries of Human Mating, which focuses on
some fascinating puzzles of human mating, such as "Can men and
women be 'just friends'"? What are the causes of rape? Do
women have evolved anti-rape defenses? What about
homosexuality? And several others. It was great fun to update
The Evolution of Desire, and I hope that readers will be well-
rewarded with the new material in the Revised Edition (Basic
Books, 2003).

DDB: Under the "stranger than fiction" category, in a class I
taught last semester to graduate level teachers concerning human
development, all but one of them answered negatively to the
statement that there is a biological basis behind many of our
mating behaviors. They honestly believe that "male" and "female"
are socially constructed roles. How does one combat such
dogmatic views? What suggestions do you have for refuting the
"social constructionist" only bias among many students?

DDB: Unfortunately, students are still being taught long-
outmoded ideas that have no empirical or theoretical warrant.
Evolutionary psychology has revolutionized our understanding of
human mating, and many other domains as well. If you ask "what
new insights and empirical discoveries have been produced by
those operating in a social constructivist theoretical framework?",
you come up empty-handed. If you ask the same question of
those working in evolutionary psychology, you come up with
literally hundreds of fascinating empirical discoveries, generated
by powerful evolution-based theories.

Eventually, the outmoded social constructivist theories will fade
away, since they do not generate novel insights or important
empirical discoveries. Evolutionary psychology, in contrast, is
here to stay. There is no turning back. Charles Darwin, at the
end of Origin, wrote this prophesy: "In the distant future,
psychology will be based on a new foundation...." Evolutionary
psychology is Darwin's prophesy coming to fruition.
 
BC: What great thinkers have had the biggest impact on your
development as a researcher and a psychologist?

DDS: Charles Darwin, W.D. Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, Don
Symons, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby.

BC: Thank you very much, Dr. Buss, and best of luck in your
future scholarship.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He can be reached
at bchapafl@hotmail.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com