Sense or non-sense? a critical discussion of a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to “folk-economic beliefs”

Laypeople hold beliefs about economics and policy issues—so-called folk-economic beliefs (FEBs)—that are often wrong or misleading according to professional economists. Here, I critically discuss a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to understanding folk-economic beliefs. According to this approach (Boyer & Petersen 2018a), some economic beliefs are more prevalent than others, because such beliefs (i.e., folk-economic beliefs) resonate with evolved features of the human mind. I refer to this as the “FEB hypothesis”. A central challenge to the FEB hypothesis, with its heavy reliance on universal cognitive features, is to explain individual and cultural differences in economic beliefs and behavior. This challenge is the starting point for the discussion. Overall, the conclusion of this paper is that the FEB hypothesis relies on unnecessarily strong and controversial theoretical assumptions (e.g., “massive modularity” and the “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness”), and that it overlooks important findings from adjacent fields, but that the FEB hypothesis, following some modifications inspired by Dual Inheritance Theory, can be integrated with robust findings from the rest of the evolutionary, cognitive, and anthropological sciences, as well as standard political psychology. Based on this discussion, the paper ends with brief reflections on how to correct inaccurate folk-economic beliefs.

The Progress of Moral Evolution

Buchanan and Powell’s book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the evolution of morality. I suggest that they exaggerate the degree to which their view of the evolution of moral progress is committed to a form of moral realism. I also suggest that Darwin’s own approach to the evolution of the moral sense shares more with their view than they may realise. Finally I point to some tensions in their invocation of the concept of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA).

Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology is a recent approach to understanding human psychology that takes as its starting point the fact that minds, just like hearts, kidneys, eyes, and thumbs, are the products of evolution. Evolutionary psychologists believe that an evolutionary perspective on psychology implies ontological and methodological commitments that sharply distinguish evolutionary psychology from other scientific theories of mind. Among the more important of these commitments are that minds consist of many (thousands, according to some) domain-specific modules that arose as adaptations during the Pleistocene epoch (roughly 1.8 million years to 11.5 thousand years ago). These adaptations are common to all human beings, and thus constitute a human nature. Study of these adaptations requires hypotheses about features of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), as well as about which psychological properties exhibit adaptive complexity. Most celebrated by evolutionary psychologists are their discoveries in the areas of mate preferences, social exchange, and parent–offspring conflict. Critics have objected that evolutionary psychology is untestable because hypotheses about the EEA cannot be tested, that evolutionary psychology is adaptationist to a fault, and that commitment to the existence of a human nature is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

The periodicity of male nocturnal emission

Mental health diagnosis has become separated from theoretical models (Suris, 2016). Masturbation is a response to (imaginary) stimuli indicative of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness for copulation. Given that culture (including clothing) exists to limit experience of this environment to private, proprietary relations, it is possible that masturbation has become unwittingly normalised in sexually saturated (overstimulated) societies. If so, we would expect nature to exhibit alternate, unconscious systems of sexual regulation. It was first hypothesised (H1) that conscious sexual activity was not an inevitable behaviour for males, in that it could be entirely replaced by nocturnal emission (wet dreams). It was further hypothesised (H2) that periodicity in nocturnal emission would be exhibited, and based on preliminary data (H2B) that the periodicity observed would match the female menstrual cycle. The preliminary data set comprised a qualitative 1390 day observation and 210 day record of nocturnal emission. The primary data set comprised a 2641 day record featuring a total 471 instances of nocturnal emission. All hypotheses were confirmed. It is concluded that care must be taken to partial out societal changes (constraints) before reframing psychological health.

Developmental and cultural factors in economic beliefs

Boyer & Petersen (B&P) assume that the intuitive systems underlying folk-economic beliefs (FEBs), and, in particular, emporiophobia, evolved in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), before markets. This makes the historical development of markets puzzling. We suggest that what evolved in the EEA are templates that help children develop intuitive systems partly adjusted to their cultural environment. This helps resolve the puzzle.