1 / 9

To Know from Martin (2015) (pp. 57-62, 176-178)

To Know from Martin (2015) (pp. 57-62, 176-178). Uniqueness & Recency of “prolonged childhood” Implications of that for: Theory of Natural Selection (shifting reproductive burdens) “priceless but useless” (M. Small) “competitive instruments” & ID as “mother of …”

doriscarroll
Download Presentation

To Know from Martin (2015) (pp. 57-62, 176-178)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. To Know from Martin (2015)(pp. 57-62, 176-178) • Uniqueness & Recency of “prolonged childhood” • Implications of that for: • Theory of Natural Selection (shifting reproductive burdens) • “priceless but useless” (M. Small) • “competitive instruments” & ID as “mother of…” • Baseline needs necess. to achieve ideal happiness • Pos. rel. b/w choices/options & anxiety • “Cult of intensive mothering” (S. Hays)

  2. Evolutionary Theory(aka, Social Darwinism) • Strategies  increase viability of self, then offspring? • Family marriage (Sprey, 2009)

  3. Inclusive Fitness Theory(Hamilton, 1964) • Help.behav genes pass on • But why would this affect… • Helping & help-willingness w/ genetic relatedness (Burnstein et al., 1994) • Result of evolut of psych process guiding soc.rel’s regardless of kinship? Emotion closeness? (Korchmar, 2006)

  4. Support or Contradict?Finding Partners • Cultural Evolution of Mate-Selection (Buss et al., 2001) • increased import attached to • increased import attached to • decreased import attached to

  5. Support or Contradict?Adding Kids • Mortality cues, SES, & Reproduct. resources (Griskevicius et al., 2010) • Mortality cues  desire to for indivs (vs. for resource-plentiful)

  6. Support or Contradict?Siblings • (differentiation) as competition coping mechanism (Adler, 1900s) • Rivalry & competition  • BUT, most sib conflict is about personalities, NOT getting parents attention (Prochaska & Prochaska, 1985) • Also, if compete, “fittest” will survive to reproduce? (Belsky, 2005) • BUT, resource access  INcreased sib conflicts! (Felson, 1983)

  7. Problems with Evolut/Bio Explanation for Understanding Family Comm • Industrialization excluded women from thry of “fittest” survivors w/ auton. choice  • If Soc.Interest/Helping sole family goal, then wouldn’t dissolve as often/easily • or communities would do caregiving role

  8. Communicate Bond Belong (CBB) Theory(Hall & Davis, 2017) • All soc.inaxns  • Only some  (action to meet need) • Competing desires to energy to meet needs • Comm: • Bond: • Bond:

  9. Nature vs. Nurture? • Even Evolutionary Theory doesn’t limit to biol! • Why then, do people cling to biology in personality research? • Dated view?

More Related