Developmental Dynamics and Contemporary Evolutionary Psychology: Status Quo or Irreconcilable Views? Reply to Bjorklund (2003), Krebs (2003), Buss and Reeve (2003), Crawford (2003), and Tooby et al. (2003)

The evolution of intelligent developmental systems

This chapter aims to understand the relations between the evolution and development of complex cognitive functions by emphasizing the context of complex, changeable environments. What evolves and develops in such contexts cannot be achieved by linear deterministic processes based on stable "codes". Rather, what is needed, even in the molecular ensembles of single-cell organisms, are "intelligent" systems with nonlinear dynamic processing, sensitive to informational structures, not just elements, in environments. This is the view emerging in recent molecular biology. The research is also constructing a new "biologic" of both evolution and development, providing a clearer rationale for transitions into more complex forms, including epigenetic, physiological, nervous, cognitive, and human sociocognitive forms. This chapter explains how these transitions form a nested hierarchical system in which the dynamics within and between levels creates emergent abilities so often underestimated or even demeaned in previous accounts, especially regarding human cognition. The implications of the view for human development in modern societies are also briefly considered.

Bridging developmental systems theory and evolutionary psychology using dynamic optimization

Interactions between evolutionary psychologists and developmental systems theorists have been largely antagonistic. This is unfortunate because potential synergies between the two approaches remain unexplored. This article presents a method that may help to bridge the divide, and that has proven fruitful in biology: dynamic optimization. Dynamic optimization integrates developmental systems theorists' focus on dynamics and contingency with the 'design stance' of evolutionary psychology. It provides a theoretical framework as well as a set of tools for exploring the properties of developmental systems that natural selection might favor, given particular evolutionary ecologies. We also discuss limitations of the approach.

Realism, Relativism, and Evolutionary Psychology

Against recent attempts to forge a reconciliation between constructionism and realism, I contend that, in psychology at least, stirring up conflict is a more fruitful strategy. To illustrate this thesis, I confront a school of psychology with strong realist leanings, evolutionary psychology, with the relativist critique of realism proposed by Edwards, Ashmore, and Potter. I show that evolutionary psychology employs the kind of “bottomline arguments” that they identify as typical of realist rhetoric. However, it also proposes a modified realism based on a concept of mediation, which accommodates a moderate social constructionism. I argue that there are good reasons to reject such a settlement between realism and constructionism. The theories of emergence that have been developed both in biology and in science and technology studies cast doubt on the view of the brain as a fully specifiable mediator.

Eriksonian Lifespan Theory and Life History Theory: An Integration Using the Example of Identity Formation

Furthering the cause of consilience in the social sciences a model is proposed in which Eriksonian life span theory and life history theory are integrated. The model explains individual differences in the Eriksonian developmental stages as a function of the individual differences in developmental trajectories of life history theory as conceptualized by Belsky, Steinberg, and Draper (1991) . Erikson's fifth stage of identity formation is used to examine the model, with the results of three studies presented to illustrate the viability of the model. Future research should examine other aspects of the model and the relationship between the developmental trajectories in life history theory and the Eriksonian stages in greater detail.

Biology as Technology: A Social Constructionist Framework for an Evolutionary Psychology

The analogy between biology and engineering in evolutionary psychology is argued to be insightful but limited. A broader analogy is therefore proposed called “biology as technology.” Biological evolution, that is, is best understood as the design and production of technical systems rather than engineered mechanisms. On that basis, a social constructionist theory of technology is used to found a revised analogy. This theory distinguishes primary instrumentalization processes of functionalization from secondary instrumentalization processes that realize technical systems in surrounding contexts. Using this framework, the revised analogy bridges between adaptationist accounts in standard evolutionary psychology and interactionist accounts critical of standard evolutionary psychology. Implications of this revised analogy for the evolution of mindedness and sociality are identified and discussed.

Personality architecture: within-person structures and processes

This chapter reviews theory and research on intraindividual personality structures and processes. Principles for modeling the architecture of personality, that is, the overall design and operating characteristics of intraindividual personality systems, are addressed. Research demonstrates that a focus on within-person structures and processes advances the understanding of two aspects of personality coherence: the functional relations among distinct elements of personality, and cross-situational coherence in personality functioning that results from interactions among enduring knowledge structures and dynamic appraisal processes. Also reviewed are recent conceptual and empirical advances, which demonstrate that the interindividual personality variables that summarize variability in the population are wholly insufficient for modeling intraindividual personality architecture.