This blog post examines how evolutionary psychology explains human psychology and whether its approach is merely a forced fit. It also discusses its limitations and problems.
The metaphor ‘The human mind is an old toolbox’ is the central theme of the book, likening the human mind to a toolbox filled with traditional tools (drills, saws, hammers, etc.) used for millions of years. Upon encountering this statement, fundamental questions arise: “Why is the mind an old toolbox?” More specific queries follow: “Why traditional tools rather than modern ones like pliers or nippers?” or “Why an old toolbox rather than a new one?” The author opposes the claim that the human mind is an old toolbox, and a detailed discussion on this will follow later in the article. First, let’s analyze several questions the book raises about the human mind and examine the reasons behind them.
The book argues that the human mind evolved by solving various ‘adaptive problems’—problems arising during the process of adapting to the environments we face in life and ensuring the survival of our offspring. To clarify this, let’s first examine the concepts of mind and evolution as defined in the book. According to the book, a mind is a system that produces a specific output given a specific input. For example, if Chul-soo and Young-hee see a dropped coin, and Chul-soo picks it up happily while Young-hee refuses to pick it up, claiming it’s not hers, then Chul-soo and Young-hee’s minds produced different outputs from the same input (the coin). This signifies that the two individuals possess different minds. Furthermore, evolution refers to the process where individuals possessing traits that enhance reproductive success in a specific environment gain an advantage over others in competition, leaving offspring. These traits are then passed down and accumulate in subsequent generations. For instance, in an extremely cold environment, a dog with thick fur would have an advantage over one with little fur, as it can withstand the cold and is more likely to reproduce. The offspring of this puppy will also have more fur, and the trait of cold resistance could include various characteristics like a thick layer of fat. Over time, as these traits accumulate, the puppies can be seen as evolving into a species more resilient to cold.
According to the previously mentioned definitions of mind and evolution, the evolution of the mind means that its outputs to specific inputs have changed to aid survival and increase reproductive success in a particular environment. Life on the African savanna, which accounts for over 95% of human history, represents this specific environment. The savanna is an intermediate zone between dense tropical rainforests and arid deserts, where hunting and gathering were the primary means of survival. Humans evolved their minds to adapt to this environment. For example, the development of a mind that perceives sugar as sweet—a high-calorie food—occurred because individuals who perceived sugar as sweet during the gathering period left more offspring than those who did not, passing this trait to subsequent generations. Here, tasting sugar is the input, and perceiving sweetness is the output. Furthermore, humans’ preference for corner areas within specific spaces can also be explained by evolution. This is because the savannah was full of predators, making it safer to live near corners—where one could watch for them—than in the center. Consequently, the trait of feeling comfortable in corners was passed down to later generations. Thus, the book defines traits essential for survival—like the mind that perceives the sweetness of sugar or finds comfort in corners—as human ‘instincts,’ arguing that these instincts collectively form the modern human mind.
Now, let’s examine why the human mind is likened to an ‘old toolbox’. The human mind is an ‘old’ toolbox because it was formed through millions of years of evolution. It is a ‘toolbox’ rather than a computer or calculator because the human mind did not evolve to solve profound questions like ‘What is God?’, but rather developed to solve practical, fundamental problems for survival on the savanna grasslands. The reason the tools in the toolbox are ‘traditional’ rather than modern is that humans spent most of their history as hunter-gatherers on the savannah, not developing tools suited to modern industrial society.
We have discussed the argument from books that view the human mind as an old toolbox. I oppose this argument and believe evolutionary psychology explains human psychology by simply forcing it to fit the situation. Evolutionary psychologists claim this theory is useful for predicting the future, but I see its limitations in explaining past events while predicting future ones.
To demonstrate the inadequacy of evolutionary psychology’s forced-fit explanations for future prediction, let’s examine a few examples of how evolutionary psychologists explain human psychology. First, evolutionary psychologists claim humans prefer corners in space. They argue that the human mind evolved this way because corners offered a strategic advantage over the center in the savanna, providing better protection against predator attacks. Second, regarding why women prefer taller men and men prefer women with wider hips, evolutionary psychologists explain that taller men had an advantage in fighting predators on the savanna, and women with wider hips are better suited for childbirth, leading to higher reproductive success. Third, the tendency to show off stems from the belief that displaying oneself attracts the attention of the opposite sex, thereby increasing reproductive success. Finally, regarding why men are more sexually proactive than women, it is explained that while men’s reproductive success correlates with the number of sexual partners, women evolved to be more cautious because they prioritize nurturing over the quantity of partners.
Such explanations reveal how illogical evolutionary psychology’s reasoning is and how unsuitable it is for predicting future behavior. For example, when someone enters a cafe and seeks a seat, evolutionary psychology struggles to predict whether they will choose a corner or a central spot. If the person entering is a tall man, he might prefer a corner seat (first example). However, being tall, he might also prefer the conspicuous center seat to show off (second and third examples). Alternatively, one might assume men have a more assertive nature, making them more inclined to show off (last example). So, will this man sit at the edge or in the center? Conversely, if a woman with a small pelvis enters the cafe, she would likely prefer the edge, avoiding others’ gaze due to a passive disposition. However, general observation shows people tend to prefer the edges in cafes. This demonstrates that while evolutionary psychology can offer plausible explanations for past events, it has limitations in predicting the future.
Evolutionary psychologists might argue that since this theory has only recently gained attention, there are no clear standards for human nature, and establishing such standards is difficult. However, if evolutionary psychology struggles to provide clear answers on how to prioritize the countless aspects of human nature, it is hard to consider it effective for predicting future events.
I believe that because evolutionary psychology amounts to little more than a forced-fit explanation, unless it establishes clear criteria for human psychology, it is likely to remain merely ‘psychological storytelling’.
