What’s Wrong with the World

Yup. Let's see: in an area of high-tech emergency rooms, the activity of drag racing is a lot LESS likely to end a person's child-bearing career than it is in an area 1000 miles from an emergency rooms.

But of course, the behavior that leads toward survival in one arena may lead _away_ from survival in another arena a short distance away. Since, as you say, "depending on environmental circumstances", you cannot (yet) describe a behavior as likely to lead toward survival simply, independently.

some behaviors are more likely than others to contribute to the survival and reproduction of oneself and of one's kin.

Lots of sex? Btw, how does one reproduce one's self?

Btw, how does one reproduce one's self?

In 2050, Xerox will market a photocopier for genetics with built-in cell fabricator.

In the previous thread I said that one of my problems with sociobiology is the leap from general personality traits to complex behaviors. A second problem I have is the move from "X is (wholly or partially) heritable" to "we find X in human beings now entirely because of the Darwinian mechanisms of mutation and natural selection." Now, obviously these aren't the same things, and one can agree with the first without admitting the second. This is even true of an _entirely_ biological and heritable trait like "having a four-chambered heart." Agreeing that it is heritable (which I think no one would deny) is a long chalk from agreeing that its present existence in mammals is entirely explicable by the Darwinian mechanisms (which I take to include the influence of environment on survival). If that's true of the entirely heritable and biological heart, it's true in spades of an only _partially_ (at most) heritable and biological trait like, say, the ability to make beautiful music or a knack for entrepreneurship.

Lydia,

What we think of as sociobiology will undergo a radical change from what we've learned over the past decade:

"Human nature or human natures?"

By Peter Frost

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328711001248

"Can Evolutionary Psychology Evolve?"

By Peter Frost

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-evolutionary-psychology-evolve.html

..

Lydia,

I left another comment regarding your comment above but it was caught by the filter.

Steve, you're reasoning backwards. Sure, we possess genetically-affected traits that can affect our likelihood of surviving and reproducing in the environment in which we live, and to the extent that we do, we can expect environmental pressures to affect the relative frequency of those traits.

It doesn't follow from this, however, that any particular trait, much less all traits, are merely a product or reflection of environmental pressures.

To give a sufficient explanation for something, you must first correctly identify what it *is*, and then you can attempt to come up with a working explanation for how it got here. The evo psychists work in reverse. They have a reductionist, materialistic explanation for how things got here, which they believe must automatically be sufficient to explain all of human psychology, and they attempt to shoehorn all human traits into that explanation by "reducing" them (ie, ignoring all the stuff that doesn't fit and pretending it doesn't exist) into materialistic, mechanistic traits that are amenable to mechanistic explanation.

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that the human faculty of reason is for finding truth?

MAR - sorry, not sure what the problem was. Your comment doesn't seem to have been held for approval - it just vanished. Anyway, here it is:

* * * * *

MAR:

"it's true in spades of an only _partially_ (at most) heritable and biological trait like, say, the ability to make beautiful music or a knack for entrepreneurship."

There is some truth to this.

Regarding entrepreneurship, the individualism that evolved among Europeans probably has influenced the individual initiative necessary for such ventures.

Regarding art, there is good reason to believe that survival mechanisms and fitness indicators underscore aesthetics. The proportions used in high European and North Asian art are found in nature; they are patterns that have repeatedly been rewarded by natural selection and sexual selection. For the former, think of patterns of leaves; for the latter, think of the pretty color combinations of male birds (which are the result of females choosing them). Sure, humans are rational and can take this to a higher level, so the survival mechanisms and fitness indicators might only be residual, but they're there nonetheless.

Such a realization might, overall, be healthy for art. For instance, the average man on the street finds abstract impressionism and many other post-1920s art forms to be repulsive; these art forms are contrary to traditional styles (which are based in natural predispositions that have been rewarded by evolution). The average man's instinct tells him that the Rothko painting is trash, but then his rational facilities kick in, "It looks ugly, but smart people say it's good art, so it must be good art."

N.B., that should read Abstract Expressionism, although the same could be said for Abstract Impressionism.

Ergg, I'm on a roll. That should read "rational faculties," not "facilities," although some facilities are rational, esp. Bentham's prison. (Typed this initially on Blackberry.)

MAR, I looked at a couple of your links. When we start talking about human culture as part of the "environment" and about man as "directing his own evolution" it becomes highly unclear what we're talking about anymore. For example, to call this "natural selection" is questionable. If, for example, young women from a certain Christian sub-culture, using their free will, guided by their parents' council, deliberately decide to choose their mates wisely (e.g., to choose young men who are likely to be good to them and faithful to them), I'm going to laugh my head off if somebody tells me this is an instance of "natural selection."

Here we go. Micro proves macro. Again. (sigh)

Lydia, that's because of the problem materialist darwinists have with rationality in any form. They cannot say that such choices are contrary to darwinian forces, but once they give a green light to using the mind and rational capacity to choose as a selection mechanism, they have undermined all possible reason for discounting intelligence as intelligent rather than as the mere outward aspect of programmed interior causes. Their whole facade tumbles into non-meaning.

@ Bill Luse: "how does one reproduce one's self?"

Heh.

Well, strictly speaking, its all about genes replicating, rather than individuals reproducing.

But you knew that.

@ Tony: "Since, as you say, 'depending on environmental circumstances', you cannot (yet) describe a behavior as likely to lead toward survival simply, independently."

Obviously. Who says otherwise?

@ SM: "sigh" yourself. When it comes to speciation, I don't know. It doesn't interest me.

@ The Deuce: I entirely agree with your first two paragraphs.

But I think your third paragraph is a tangle of confusions. What particular ev/psych theorists are you thinking of, here? Gregory Cochran, or Henry Harpending, or Razib Khan, or...well...who, exactly?

"...do you believe that the human faculty of reason is for finding truth?..."

Are you asking whether I think that Aristotelian/Thomistic "final causes" are a fundamental feature of reality?

@ Lydia: "...one of my problems with sociobiology is the leap from general personality traits to complex behaviors..."

Well, OK - and one of *my* problems with *critics* of sociobiology is that they constantly make huge generalizations about the field while rarely if ever actually naming names or citing particular examples. Who, exactly, are we talking about, here? Somebody who actually matters? Or some picayune blogger?

Gregory Cochran, or Henry Harpending, or Razib Khan, or...well...who, exactly?

Every single one that has used evo-psych to "explain" "altruism", "morality", "religious belief", "intentionality", "consciousness", "reason", etc (as redefined in mechanistic terms, hence the scare quotes).

Are you asking whether I think that Aristotelian/Thomistic "final causes" are a fundamental feature of reality?

I'm not asking about A/T final causes in general (though, sure, state your position on that if you want). I'm asking about reason specifically. Is an objective fact that the human faculty of reason is for finding truth?

one of *my* problems with *critics* of sociobiology is that they constantly make huge generalizations about the field while rarely if ever actually naming names or citing particular examples.

Isn't the citing of particular examples what you're supposed to be doing?

Are you asking whether I think that Aristotelian/Thomistic "final causes" are a fundamental feature of reality?

Can't you just answer his question instead of asking another one?

Well, strictly speaking, its all about genes replicating, rather than individuals reproducing.

Are the recombinant genes produced by sexual reproduction, since they're not exactly the same as the genes used previously, considered a failure of 'Selfish Gene' theory? Or, perhaps a victory of the reasoning individual mind over the dark, meaningless forces of evolution? And are we allowing for the fact of weakly selective natural environments? Most of nature, once it settles into an ecological niche, tends to repeat the genotype that survives in that niche for a very long time with very few changes, even positive ones, being easily fixed. Natural selection is as random as mutation most of the time.

I'll contend that human evolution has been far more intensely affected by things like the slave trade, the concentration of Jews and other middleman minorities in financial castes, the enforcement of certain laws in certain societies to a much greater extent than others, and the codes ("memes" for struggling atheists) man chooses to live by. Human evolution and differentiation is much faster and produces much more sharply-differentiated types when combined with human civilization and its attendant practices. But that's an argument against natural and for intelligent selection, which is both far more parsimonious and far more effective.

Full disclosure: I'm someone who thinks The Edge of Evolution kind of had a point, so feel free to dismiss these observations with all the misty hopeful authority of popular Darwinism.

Well, Steve, I have one lovely example from Michael Levin that immediately comes to mind of the "sociobiological explanation" for couples' failure to have a good sexual adjustment, but this being a family-friendly site, I won't go into detail.

Then there is the whole philosophical discussion (which I seem to remember your bringing up yourself long ago at Right Reason), by completely respectable philosophers, of how we supposedly "know" the origins of religious belief in evolutionary psychology.

Frankly, some of MAR's talk in one of these threads about "evolutionary psychology" and art seems to me to be a good example. Should I _have_ to point out that saying (reasonably enough) that there may be a good reason in nature for people's dislike of abstract art goes nowhere towards explaining the origin of the ability to make great art? No, I shouldn't even have to take my time typing out those words. But if you regard MAR as a "picayune blogger," that's of course up to you. Some of the links he posted about the "evolution" of "evolutionary psychology" looked like they want to sites filled with lots of special pleading as well.

Then of course there was the blogger--yes, a blogger, but perhaps one whom you would want to say is giving a fair representation of the arguments--who told us this:

It's at the next level down that "evolutionists" start saying something interesting & different:

Why are people smart? Why are they determined? Why are they creative? Why are they avid of wealth, fame & power (to the extent that they are)?

Because, up to a point, intelligence, determination, creativity, and the desire for wealth, fame & power were qualitites that tended to result, in the circumstances of human evolution, in greater inclusive fitness - I.e., genes that contributed to intelligence, determination, creativity, and the desire for wealth, fame & power tended to spread, while genes that detracted from same tended to die out.

Let's just say that I don't consider that to be a very good explanation for Edison, even indirectly. Nor, for that matter, for human creativity.

Lydia: "If, for example, young women from a certain Christian sub-culture, using their free will, guided by their parents' council, deliberately decide to choose their mates wisely (e.g., to choose young men who are likely to be good to them and faithful to them), I'm going to laugh my head off if somebody tells me this is an instance of "natural selection.""

I think I'm missing something. That would be a case of se--al selection, not natural selection. (I use 'se--al' because I think that word caused the filter to block my previous comment.) But I assume you're making another point I'm not getting...

Lydia: "nowhere towards explaining the origin of the ability to make great art?"

I never said it was a full explanation.. As humans became more intelligent, rational abilities certainly would have aided. But there do seem to be certain proportions rewarded by natural and se--al selection that humans favor. This may be residual but profound nonetheless.

Lydia,

Have you read EO Wilson's Sociobiology? I think it's hard to reject many of the claims of sociobiology. It seems to be true. You don't think that lactose tolerance influenced European civilization? Or what what particular pheromones evolved among a certain species of ants affects their organization? But putting truth aside, since many off the commenters here seem not to care about the truth of evolution but only the "materialist implications," I'll make a comment about the general implications of sociobiology. I don't really understand why some religious types reject sociobiology. The hereditarian view is the ancient view. Claiming that man is a particular way and can't be changed is much more traditional than the recent culturalist view claiming he's infinitely malleable and changeable. The culturalist view is the one promoted by Boasians and Cultural Marxists.

Weird. I posted the above three comments as one, but the filter rejected them. I broke them up into three comments and the filter accepted them.

I commented elsewhere (I think) about the difference between acceptance of the importance of heredity and acceptance of a Darwinian theory of the origin of a trait. Again, nobody doubts that a four-chambered heart is a hereditary feature. Nobody doubts that having one works out real well for the animals that have one. That doesn't tell us that a four-chambered heart got into the species by Darwinian evolution. If that's true of a physical thing like a heart, it's *far more* true of something like the ability to make art. Remember, we aren't even just talking about the ability to _appreciate_ great art. We're talking about the ability to _make_ it. Far more difficult.

My comment about young women favoring faithful young men was meant to relate to a comment on one of the sites you linked, MAR, where it talked about "humans directing their own evolution." If humans are directing their own evolution, then there is a real question as to what it means to say that the results are caused by evolution! To put it on the crudest level, if some society engaged in massive, totalitarian eugenics, the outcome would be the result of plain old _selective breeding_, which is what Darwinian mechanisms were supposed to mimic, not what they were supposed to be identified with.

@ The Deuce: I still don't know who you're talking about. You seem to insist on carrying on the discussion at what strikes me as a useless level of generality.

"Is [it] an objective fact that the human faculty of reason is for finding truth?"

Well, good heavens, TD. You seem to want a simple yes or no answer to an *extremely* ambiguous question. Without a lot more information, I simply *have no idea* how to answer it. I'm sorry, but there it is.

I assume you're familiar with the following dictum, which has been attributed to Voltaire: *the purpose of language is to conceal our thoughts, and the purpose of thought to justify our crimes.*

In it's way, I think that's every bit as insightful as the A/T view (as I understand it) that the "faculty of reason is for finding truth."

Hope this helps.

@WL "Isn't the citing of particular examples what you're supposed to be doing?"

Well, no, I don't think so; I'm not the one indicting an entire field of scientific inquiry, here. And, just offhand, I don't think I've made any claims that require defense by example.

"Can't you just answer his question instead of asking another one?"

I'm assuming that this was *consciously* ironic ;^)

Lydia - I'm perfectly willing to accept the designation "picayune blogger." None of my inadequacies should be charged to the account of evolutionary psychology. That should go without saying.

As for MAR, he can speak for himself (and I think he does so very well).

And, yes, Daniel Dennett's account of religious belief in *Breaking the Spell* (I assume that's what you're talking about) struck me as pretty feeble.

But c'mon. You, or Auster, or anybody else who wants to issue grand pronunciamentos about evolutionary psychology really, seriously needs to read, at the very least, the best of the popular expositions. And you, like him, seem weirdly unwilling to do so.

I mean, do you even own a copy of, say, *The Selfish Gene*, or *The Red Queen*, or *The 10,000 Year Explosion*?

I mean, do you even own a copy of, say, *The Selfish Gene*

I think somewhere in the house. Look, I went _through_ a stage of flirting (not very seriously) with sociobiology, back when I was reading Levin. And then there's what's-his-name whose talks I went to and articles I read. Can't remember his name. The philosopher who says Darwinism is politically conservative. He had a point-counterpoint in First Things.

It's just all darned unconvincing. _At most_ some conjectures I've seen are mildly interesting, but they all require that "simple jellyfish with five senses"--i.e., an already working, fully developed human society, human psychology. Then it's just, "This group might have become more intelligent than that group because of isolation and environmental pressures." Maybe. But by that time we've already got mankind in all his glory and are just conjecturing over the details of mean group intelligence or what-have-you.

By the way, on art, MAR hasn't exactly gone into detail, but I _think_ the idea is supposed to run something like this: The genius of Titian and Michelangelo is in significant measure explained by the fact that some (possibly human, possibly pre-human) ancestors of Titian and Michelangelo passed their time making realistic visual art, the ability and inclination to make which was encoded genetically to a significant degree. Prehistoric or prehuman girls were much taken with these drawings, because they imitated nature, and they were therefore more willing to have sexual intercourse with Titian's and Michelangelo's ancestors than they would have been had the ancestors not had this art-making genetic makeup. Hence the art-ability gene set was preserved, only to burst forth long later in men like Titian and Michelangelo.

Am I getting warm?

And I'm supposed to read a whole book along similar lines before deciding fairly that it's unconvincing?

OK, I need a break from grading final exams, before I go mad. So shoot me.

Lydia: It's obvious from your response that you have no serious knowledge of nor interest in evolutionary psychology.

Steve, so give us a brief but intelligible example of a chain of reasoning that is both interesting and does not assume a ton of assumptions. I don't have time to read through 5 books on ev. psych. when there is that Calvin and Hobbes calling my name. :-)

Tony: you mean, like, modus tollens?

Sorry, but biology ain't like that. Everything interesting in biology involves a ton of assumptions.

So you don't have time to read through 5 books on ev. psych.?

Do you have time for one? Make it *The Selfish Gene.*

If you don't have time even for that, then I don't have time for you.

Fair's fair.

Todd White had a good essay on evolutionary psychology:

http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/01/sex-with-blondes-and-darwin.html

Using evolution to explain human behavior is inherently silly. Why? Because the Darwinists insist that literally every behavior is a victory for evolution. Consider the following:

On P. 6-9 of her book, Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes, Jena Pincott addresses the question, "Why do men prefer big pupils?" She answers: "Evolutionarily speaking, men prefer big, gaping pupils because they're a sign of arousal and receptivity ... Your pupils dilate widest around ovulation, the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle." Ok ... so ... the blind forces of nature designed women's pupils to dilate as a "sign of fertility?" Seems plausible.

But then we come to this ... on p. 90-92, Ms. Pincott asks, "What does a "wiggle" in your walk reveal?" Answer: "The more wiggle in your walk, the tinier your waist is in proportion to your hips--a telltale sign of youth and fertility." OK, so "evolutionarily speaking," we would expect a woman's "wiggle" to be greatest during ovulation, right? Wrong! "To the contrary, it turns out that's when a woman's gait is most restrained." Does this contradict sociobiology? Of course not. As Pincott says--without any hint of irony--"the reason women walk less provocatively when they're most fertile is an unconscious attempt to avoid excessive male attention."

Got that? During ovulation, women's eyes dilate to gain men's attention, and during the same period, their hips wiggle less to avoid men's attention! Of course, that makes absolutely NO sense! But that's exactly what happens when you use Darwinism to explain every facet of human behavior. For the atheist Darwinists, everything in life is Darwinist. In every debate, they play the same game: "heads I win; tails you lose."

The rest of the essay is very good as well.

It's obvious from your response that you have no serious knowledge of nor interest in evolutionary psychology.

Well, Steve, I was making an attempt to flesh out MAR's suggestions. He's been a bit sketchy on where this business about nature and the origins of artistic genius is going. If either of you has a better way to tell the story than mine, by all means, go for it.

And Steve, it's no sillier than some sociobiological theories actually published. See the comment left recently on one of these threads on female hip wiggle and large pupils.

See the comment left recently on one of these threads on female hip wiggle and large pupils.

As in the comment immediately preceding yours. I'll start with the obvious: pupil dilation is a signal only for men who are close enough to see the woman's eyes. During human prehistory, it was inherently a short-range attraction signal for men allowed to be that close. On the other hand, a wiggle in the walk can be spotted at a further distance and could easily attract men who aren't accepted by the tribe and invite violence. So while the wiggle in the walk is useful as a generic marker of potential fertility and attracting a quality mate, it is slightly suppressed during occasions of actual fertility because it also spikes the level of conflict. In other words, dilation provides an advantage for attracting men already screened as suitable mates, while the hip wiggle is a trait with a mixture of advantages (within the tribe) and disadvantages (outside the tribe).

Step2, let's suppose (hypothetically) that every word of that is reasonable. Is there a single shred of evidence that this is actually (a) how the two traits operate in pre-modern tribes, and (b) that they actually came about in such tribes because they were survival and reproductive advantages. Or is it a "just so" story that sounds appropriate.

Sorry, but biology ain't like that. Everything interesting in biology involves a ton of assumptions.

I accept that biology has a lot of assumptions on the bottom end. I am not trying to undermine biology as such.

Let me make the challenge simpler: how about an interesting chain of reasoning that does not involve several assumptions in the middle of the chain that ties up genes and behaviors (i.e. socio- or psych- behaviors) and better survival/reproduction. Set out as many assumptions below your chain that you need for the biological framework. I just don't want to see multiple assumptions constituting the chain pieces themselves. While you are working toward that, I will get the book from the library. I promise to read it after you give me the example. Is that fair?

Tony: I've puzzled my way through 56 undergraduate essays today.

Enough is enough.

Step2, let's suppose (hypothetically) that every word of that is reasonable.

Let's suppose that magic isn't required to explain biology or human behavior. That is my starting point.

Is there a single shred of evidence that this is actually (a) how the two traits operate in pre-modern tribes, and...

I don't think there have been any studies done on it, or at least I couldn't find any, but there is evidence that both of the premises of pupil dilation and the hip wiggle are generally attractive to men. Regarding dilation, by necessity it has to be a short range phenomenon. The evidence to support the theory would involve studies about how sequestered young, unattached women are in pre-modern tribes. I believe there is fairly strong evidence of that in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan. Regarding the hip wiggle, that theory is less straightforward and less easy to demonstrate. At a minimum it would involve studies showing how quickly violence escalates when a man arrives on the scene by initial contact with a young woman.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

(b) that they actually came about in such tribes because they were survival and reproductive advantages. Or is it a "just so" story that sounds appropriate.

I think there are obviously some survival advantages to attracting men who are already screened by the tribe, and there are some obvious disadvantages to attracting men who are not. If you disagree, feel free to explain why. The main problem with my theory is to show how the in-group advantages to the hip wiggle outweigh the out-group disadvantages.

OK, one simple problem, Step2, is that in some (many?) primitive tribes the young women may have been simply kept sequestered to the point where they never come within sight of those outside the tribe. Downplaying the hip-wiggle at ovulation would then become completely irrelevant: all the males within sight are tribal.

Secondly, there are obvious survival advantages to bringing new blood into the tribe: inbreeding causes problems. Strategies for enhancing inbreeding to the exclusion of ex-breeding seem problematic.

I am not actually opposed to the hypothesis as a hypothesis. The main problem is turning it into science.

OK, one simple problem, Step2, is that in some (many?) primitive tribes the young women may have been simply kept sequestered to the point where they never come within sight of those outside the tribe.

That seems unlikely because the earliest human tribes were fairly small and not agricultural, so they were moving from one place to another on a seasonal basis and they couldn't afford to keep her completely sequestered. The amount of work needed for simple survival was too much to keep a young woman fed and constantly hidden away.

Secondly, there are obvious survival advantages to bringing new blood into the tribe: inbreeding causes problems. Strategies for enhancing inbreeding to the exclusion of ex-breeding seem problematic.

I didn't say it prohibited new blood, my claim is these traits function to prohibit new blood that hasn't first been screened by the tribe.

Oh, for crying out loud, Step2. Pupil dilation might be seen by more than one man _within_ the tribe and cause violence among _them_. That is _such_ an example of the reason that sociobiology invites contempt.

Steve, I ask you. Call Step2 a picayune blogger all you like, but perhaps you might answer this. Here is a recent comment by Step2 about a book that *was published* in ev-psych purporting to "explain" certain feminine traits. Here's Step2's expansion on it:

During human prehistory, it was inherently a short-range attraction signal for men allowed to be that close. On the other hand, a wiggle in the walk can be spotted at a further distance and could easily attract men who aren't accepted by the tribe and invite violence. So while the wiggle in the walk is useful as a generic marker of potential fertility and attracting a quality mate, it is slightly suppressed during occasions of actual fertility because it also spikes the level of conflict. In other words, dilation provides an advantage for attracting men already screened as suitable mates, while the hip wiggle is a trait with a mixture of advantages (within the tribe) and disadvantages (outside the tribe).

Is that, or is it not, typical of the kind of "explanation" offered by ev-psych? And is it, or is it not, in your opinion worthy of serious consideration as science? Let's try another one: If the name of the person who wrote that paragraph I just quoted were "Richard Dawkins" or "E.O. Wilson" rather than the nom de cyber of some blogging commentator, would you take it seriously as a typical ev-psych scientific explanation and ask/expect people like me to take it seriously?

Can I suggest that the wiggle in the walk is far more easily explained in evolutionary success terms: a woman's body must needs shift to allow the fetus to come to birth. During the last 2 months the hips loosen for that purpose, and the woman waddles. The woman who has a hip-swinging wiggle is demonstrating that her body will take care of the shift quite nicely, thank you: she is proving herself a fit birthing mother. You don't need to resort to complex and simply unknowable inter-tribal socio-mechanical guesswork to "explain" it.

Pupil dilation might be seen by more than one man _within_ the tribe and cause violence among _them_.

Whatever competition there is within the tribe is going to be settled by tribal hierarchy, so it will typically be resolved peacefully based on tribal status.

The woman who has a hip-swinging wiggle is demonstrating that her body will take care of the shift quite nicely, thank you: she is proving herself a fit birthing mother.

Tony, you seem to have misunderstood the problem. The hip wiggle is already assumed to be a natural signal for being a fit mother. The problem was to explain why the signal is suppressed during times of ovulation, and that does require some complexity.

Whatever competition there is within the tribe is going to be settled by tribal hierarchy, so it will typically be resolved peacefully based on tribal status.

A convenient assumption about the sociology of (hypothetical) prehistoric tribes. If this is not fact-free pseudo-science, I don't know what is.

It's always amusing to discover what people claim to know about the behavior of prehistoric humans, seeing as how they are, you know, prehistoric.

Well, good heavens, TD. You seem to want a simple yes or no answer to an *extremely* ambiguous question.

It's not an ambiguous question at all, Steve. In this series of posts, you are attempting to establish the truth of evolutionary psychology by giving reasons, one at a time, to build a deductive argument, and you seem to think that our capacity to reason, if followed, should lead us to accept you conclusion as true. This makes no sense unless the function of reason is to ascertain truth. I suspect that you are quite aware of what evolutionary reductionism implies about all this, and so would prefer to keep it vague.

If this is not fact-free pseudo-science, I don't know what is.

Too much projection. Faulty statistics don't turn intelligent design into science.

A convenient assumption about the sociology of (hypothetical) prehistoric tribes.

There is all sorts of anthropological evidence for violence between nomadic tribes; there is almost none for violence between members of the same tribe. I’m baffled by the reasons you would even suppose differently, because one of the primary reasons for forming a tribe is mutual safety. Even if I am wrong about the mechanism of status being used to resolve mating privilege conflicts within the tribe, there was certainly some political mechanism of social control used. The reason I know this is because humans didn’t go extinct.

It's always amusing to discover what people claim to know about the behavior of prehistoric humans, seeing as how they are, you know, prehistoric.

Oh, I like that. It's always amusing to discover what people claim to "know" about an intelligent designer who intervenes every 20 million years or so to modify a few biological systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution#Basic_timeline