Genetics and Evolution

 email page    print page

All Topic Reviews
A Companion to GenethicsA Companion to GenethicsA Cooperative SpeciesA Mind So RareA Natural History of RapeAcquiring GenomesAdapting MindsAgeing, Health and CareAlas, Poor DarwinAn Introduction to Evolutionary EthicsAncient Bodies, Modern LivesAnimal ArchitectsAping MankindAre We Hardwired?Bang!BehavingBeyond EvolutionBeyond GeneticsBlood MattersBody BazaarBoneBrain Evolution and CognitionBrain StormBrave New BrainBrave New WorldsChoosing ChildrenCloneCloningConceptual Issues in Evolutionary BiologyConsciousness EvolvingContemporary Debates in Philosophy of BiologyControlling Our DestiniesCooperation and Its EvolutionCreatures of AccidentDarwin Loves YouDarwin's Brave New WorldDarwin's Gift to Science and ReligionDarwin's UniverseDarwin's WormsDarwinian ConservatismDarwinian PsychiatryDarwinism and its DiscontentsDarwinism as ReligionDebating DesignDecoding DarknessDefenders of the TruthDo We Still Need Doctors?Doubting Darwin?Early WarningEngineering the Human GermlineEnhancing EvolutionEnoughEntwined LivesEthical Issues in Human CloningEthical Issues in the New GeneticsEvil GenesEvolutionEvolutionEvolution and Human BehaviorEvolution and Human BehaviorEvolution and Human Sexual BehaviorEvolution and LearningEvolution and ReligionEvolution and the Human MindEvolution in MindEvolution, Gender, and RapeEvolution: The Modern SynthesisEvolutionary Ethics and Contemporary BiologyEvolutionary Origins of MoralityEvolutionary PsychiatryEvolutionary PsychologyEvolutionary Psychology and ViolenceEvolutionary Psychology as Maladapted PsychologyExploding the Gene MythFaces of Huntington'sFlesh of My FleshFrom Chance to ChoiceFrom Darwin to HitlerGenesGenes in ConflictGenes on the CouchGenes, Environment, and PsychopathologyGenes, Environment, and PsychopathologyGenes, Women, EqualityGenetic Nature/CultureGenetic PoliticsGenetic ProspectsGenetic ProspectsGenetic SecretsGenetics in the MadhouseGenetics of Criminal and Antisocial BehaviourGenetics of Mental DisordersGenetics of Original SinGenetics of Original SinGenomeGenomeGenome: Updated EditionGenomes and What to Make of ThemGlowing GenesHow Women Got Their Curves and Other Just-So StoriesHuman CloningHuman Evolution, Reproduction, and MoralityImproving Nature?In Our Own ImageIn Pursuit of the GeneIn the Name of GodIngenious GenesInheritanceInside the Human GenomeInside the O'BriensIntegrating Evolution and DevelopmentIntelligence, Race, and GeneticsIs Human Nature Obsolete?Language OriginsLess Than HumanLiberal EugenicsLiving with Our GenesMaking Genes, Making WavesMaking Sense of EvolutionMan As The PrayerMean GenesMenMood GenesMoral OriginsMothers and OthersNature Via NurtureNever Let Me GoNot By Genes AloneOf Flies, Mice, and MenOn the Origin of StoriesOrigin of MindOrigins of Human NatureOrigins of PsychopathologyOur Posthuman FuturePhilosophy of BiologyPlaying God?Playing God?Portraits of Huntington'sPrimates and PhilosophersPromiscuityPsychiatric Genetics and GenomicsPsychologyQuality of Life and Human DifferenceRe-creating MedicineRedesigning HumansResearch Advances in Genetics and GenomicsResponsible GeneticsResponsible GeneticsScience, Seeds and CyborgsSex and WarSociological Perspectives on the New GeneticsStrange BedfellowsStrange BehaviorSubjects of the WorldSubordination and DefeatThe Age of EmpathyThe Agile GeneThe Ape and the Sushi MasterThe Biotech CenturyThe Blank SlateThe Book of LifeThe Boy Who Loved Too MuchThe Bridge to HumanityThe Case Against PerfectionThe Case for PerfectionThe Case of the Female OrgasmThe Century of the GeneThe Common ThreadThe Concept of the Gene in Development and EvolutionThe Debated MindThe Double-Edged HelixThe Epidemiology of SchizophreniaThe Ethics of Choosing ChildrenThe Ethics of Human CloningThe Evolution of CooperationThe Evolution of MindThe Evolution of MindThe Evolved ApprenticeThe Evolving WorldThe Extended Selfish GeneThe Fact of EvolutionThe Folly of FoolsThe Future of Human NatureThe God GeneThe Immortal Life of Henrietta LacksThe Impact of the GeneThe Innate MindThe Innate MindThe Innate Mind: Volume 3The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic ResearchThe Lives of the BrainThe Maladapted MindThe Meme MachineThe Misunderstood GeneThe Moral, Social, and Commercial Imperatives of Genetic Testing and ScreeningThe Most Dangerous AnimalThe New Genetic MedicineThe Nurture AssumptionThe Origin and Evolution of CulturesThe Origins of FairnessThe Paradoxical PrimateThe Perfect BabyThe Robot's RebellionThe Selfish GeneThe Shape of ThoughtThe Shattered SelfThe Stem Cell ControversyThe Story WithinThe Stuff of LifeThe Talking ApeThe Temperamental ThreadThe Terrible GiftThe Theory of OptionsThe Top 10 Myths About EvolutionThe Triple HelixThe Triumph of SociobiologyThe Woman Who Walked into the SeaTwinsUnderstanding CloningUnderstanding the GenomeUnnatural SelectionUnto OthersUp From DragonsVoracious Science and Vulnerable AnimalsWar Against the WeakWhat Genes Can't DoWhat It Means to Be 98 Percent ChimpanzeeWho Owns YouWhose View of Life?Why Evolution Is TrueWhy Think? WondergenesWrestling with Behavioral GeneticsYour Genetic Destiny

Related Topics
The Robot's RebellionReview - The Robot's Rebellion
Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin
by Keith E. Stanovich
University Of Chicago Press, 2005
Review by Sven Walter, Ph.D.
Nov 14th 2006 (Volume 10, Issue 46)

The Robot's Rebellion attempts to reconcile a scientific commitment to Darwinism with the commonsense view that we are freely deliberating agents who are in charge of and responsible for at least some of their actions. As such, it is valuable reading for anyone interested in the nature and evolution of human mind, culture, and behavior. Though written by a professional psychologist, it is of interest not only for psychologists, but also for students and researchers from fields like anthropology, biology, philosophy, or cognitive science, and it should be accessible to well-educated laymen, too. It is written clearly and engagingly, unfamiliar technical jargon is introduced carefully, and Stanovich does a great job in taking the reader on a guided tour through some of the most fascinating research psychology, cognitive science, and evolutionary biology have brought forward during the past forty years.

During the twentieth century Darwinism has eaten its way voraciously through scientific disciplines of all sorts, giving rise lately to such fields as evolutionary economics, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary epistemology, or evolutionary medicine. Initially the social sciences seemed to stand out as a last hold of resistance against a universal Darwinism, but nowadays there is little doubt, at least in academic circles, that human mind, culture, and behavior are also amendable to evolutionary explanations. When science tells us that our mind, behavior, and culture--and with it everything we value about ourselves, our relations to our friends and families, our society etc.--are explainable in terms of genes, processes of DNA-splitting, random mutation and recombination, and things like that, one feels a strong urge to ask: But what about us? If Darwinism conquers the social sciences, we seem to go piggy-back on our genes, brains and bodies, being unable to get off, so that we do and want only what they do and want. What role do we play in our lifes? Is there anything left that we are in charge of? Stanovich's The Robot's Rebellion promises to answer these questions--in a way that allows us to find 'meaning in the age of Darwin', as its subtitle has it.

According to Stanovich, we are robots created by our genes to protect them and to promote their survival. He borrows this metaphor from the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins who, in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, famously argued that the beneficiaries of natural selection are not individuals or groups of individuals, but genes, and that we are there for their preservation only--we are our gene's "survival machines" (p. 20). Stanovich claims that evolution has hardwired in our brains what he calls the TASS, The Autonomous Set of Systems: a set of fast, mandatory, informationally encapsulated, and domain specific behavior-triggering psychological mechanisms. We are robots in the sense that large parts of our behavior are controlled by these Darwinian 'modules' that (metaphorically speaking) have been designed by evolution in order for us to take care of our genes. Usually, TASS serves our interests by serving our gene's interests, but if our and our genes' goals diverge, Stanovich argues, TASS will not care for us, but for our genes. However, we are able to rebel against this tyranny of our genes.

As the adaptive problems we had to solve in order to be good survival machines for our genes became more complex, our genes could no longer rely on hardwired 'modules' for the guidance of our behavior, but had to implement more flexible mechanisms. That is why we are also equipped with a domain general, all-purpose 'analytic system' that allows us to deal with environmental challenges too complex to be dealt with in the stimulus-response manner characteristic of TASS. The analytic system is the key to our rebellion because it allows us to recognize cases in which TASS prompts behavior that we, upon reflection, realize is not what we really want. Having realized this, we must then overrule TASS and instead behave in a way that benefits us, not our genes. We must use our empirical knowledge about the functioning of our brain and its evolutionary history and about the goals served by its psychological mechanisms to structure, or re-structure, our behavior in a such way that we do what we want, not what our genes want us to want.

Here is a simple example. Our current ecological environment differs massively from the selective environment of our ancestors in which the psychological mechanisms that make up much of our mind/brain originally evolved. Since we thus rely on 'stone age minds' to handle the modern world of the twenty-first century, much of our behavior is likely to be maladaptive. Our preference for sweet and fat food, for instance, is the result of an evolutionary mechanism for optimizing energy intake, which made sense in our ancestors' environment but which is obviously maladaptive in an environment in which one can get donuts and burgers on every corner. In such cases, TASS-prompted behavior is bad for us, and we have to use our analytic system to overrule it in favor of behavior that benefits us. If we do not want to consume with one burger more fat than we need in a whole day, we must overrule our built-in desire for fat and replace it by a desire that really serves us – e.g., the desire for a healthy body and a long life.

There is a further problem, however. It may sound plausible that in order to do what is good for us we need to pursue our goals, in contrast to our genes' goals. But are our goals necessarily good for us? A drug addict may want to go on taking drugs, but that doesn't mean taking drugs is good for her. To overrule TASS-prompted behavior by rational reflection of one's beliefs and desires is one thing, but we must also ensure that our beliefs and desires lead to behavior that is truly good for us. As Stanovich puts it, the problem is that genes are not the only replicators that use us to maximize their replicative success. Memes, just like genes, can also make us behave in a way that benefits their propagation. Dawkins coined the term 'meme' to denote an analogue to the gene as the biological unit of inheritance. His idea is that culture evolves in a process of variation and descent with modification exactly analogous to biological evolution. Memes, pieces of cultural information, are cultural replicators just as much as genes are biological replicators, and transmission to as many individuals as possible is a meme's first and foremost goal. Since the memes which enter into our belief- and desire-forming processes care more for their propagation than for us, pursuing our goals instead of our genes' goals might only get us out of the frying pan into the fire, for we may end up serving our memes' interests.

We must ensure that our goals are good for us and that we do not have them only because they contain successful memes. I want another piece of triple fudge chocolate cake, but should I want to want another piece? Do I only have the wish, or is it a good wish for me to have? If I care for my interests, then upon reflection I should realize that I should not want to want another piece. This process of higher-order rational reflection of our beliefs and desires, in combination with our capacity to overrule TASS, is what makes a successful rebellion possible. Once the genes had to equip us with an all-purpose analytic system to cope with more complex environmental challenges, we gained real autonomy: we can now rationally evaluate our beliefs and desires, making sure they are good for us, and we can favor behavior that benefits us over behavior that benefits our genes only. The truth of universal Darwinism notwithstanding, we can be freely deliberating agents that do what they do because they have the beliefs and desires they have, and that are not mere survival machines made for the preservation of genes and memes.

The Robot's Rebellion was badly needed. Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful and best confirmed scientific theories, but even some of its most ardent defenders feel that it leaves something out, some sort of meaning, or purpose, some role for us as self-conscious subjects, and this is why many are skeptical about, if not hostile to, the idea of universal Darwinism. It was thus important that someone explain that and why life is not over for us if universal Darwinism is true, and The Robot's Rebellion does it with remarkable clarity and vigor.

The book's main virtue is Stanovich's ability to bring together the results of some of the most interesting research in psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and evolutionary biology during the past four decades and to use this material to construct an overall account of our mind's role in shaping our behavior. Alas, the book's main virtue is also its main problem: it is a hodgepodge of interesting suggestions, innovative ideas and fascinating speculations, but sometimes the arguments seem to have been forgotten amidst all the thought-provoking intermingling of ideas. The individual components--Dawkins' gene-centered perspective on evolution, Evolutionary psychology's idea that past adaptations can be maladaptive in our modern environment, analyses of failures of rationality in the heuristics and biases tradition of Kahneman and Tversky, or the idea of memes as cultural replicators--are well-argued. The problem is the overall package, which sometimes sounds like an instance of the 'mere storytelling' that evolutionary theorists are often accused of: Stanovich's account sounds plausible, but it is unclear which arguments connect the various components not only to a plausible, but also to a well-argued, substantiated and maybe even testable whole.

For instance, I agree that TASS-prompted behavior, from our point of view, often leads to suboptimal results, and I also agree that when subjected to various tests of rationality, we quite often exhibit irrational behavior. However, I am not sure the latter can be explained by the former. According to Stanovich, we respond suboptimally in tests of rationality because we act in accordance with TASS, rather than overruling it by means of our analytic system. But in typical cases of failure of rationality--if I violate the transitivity principle, fail on the Wason selection task or the Linda problem, prefer a policy with no deductible and a cost of $80 a month over a policy with a $400 yearly deductible and a cost of $40 per month, or a lottery with eight winning tickets and 92 blanks over one with one winning ticket and nine blanks (Stanovich's examples)--in what sense does my behavior benefit my genes? It is obvious how my genes benefited from my preference for fat in our ancestors' environment. But under what circumstances would it help my genes that I violate the transitivity principle (i.e. prefer A over C, A over B and B over C) or fail on the Linda task (i.e. judge a conjunction to be more probable than either conjunct)? Another problem seems to be the following: One of Stanovich's main points is that we must use our analytic system to overrule TASS. Yet, if I want to stop judging a conjunction to be more probable than either conjunct, taking a class in probability theory will help, only exercising my analytical skills won't (imagine a statistics instructor telling his students: "All you have to do to pass this class is to exercise your analytical skills!").

This is not to say that Stanovich's account, in these and other cases, is false. It's just that one would want to hear more in some places about exactly how the parts of Stanovich's interdisciplinary puzzle are supposed to fit together. These, however, are details that can be resolved by further research in an area to which Stanovich has made a valuable and impressive contribution and that certainly do not affect the overall merit of The Robot's Rebellion.


2006 Sven Walter


Sven Walter, Ph.D., University of Bielefeld, Germany


Welcome to Metapsychology. We feature over 8200 in-depth reviews of a wide range of books and DVDs written by our reviewers from many backgrounds and perspectives. We update our front page weekly and add more than twenty new reviews each month. Our editor is Christian Perring, PhD. To contact him, use one of the forms available here.

Metapsychology Online reviewers normally receive gratis review copies of the items they review.
Metapsychology Online receives a commission from for purchases through this site, which helps us send review copies to reviewers. Please support us by making your purchases through our Amazon links. We thank you for your support!

Join our e-mail list!: Metapsychology New Review Announcements: Sent out monthly, these announcements list our recent reviews. To subscribe, click here.

Interested in becoming a book reviewer for Metapsychology? To apply, write to our editor.

Metapsychology Online Reviews

Promote your Page too

Metapsychology Online Reviews
ISSN 1931-5716