It might just be my text book not explaining it very well, but under the sub-topic "evolutionary explanations of group display in humans" there is a section about religious/cultural displays. The reason given as to why in some religions people undergo painful rituals is to show their commitment to the group (which is adaptive because belonging to a group helped people to survive). BUT then the supposed ''supporting evidence'' is laughably ridiculous - "Ruffle and Sosis found synagogue attendance to be positively correlated with cooperative behaviour in males; however, they found no such correlation among females because attendance is not a requirement for women and so does not serve as a signal of commitment to the group." What is this actually saying? That Jewish men have evolved to go to the synagogue? It seems to contradict the evolutionary theory in that it is saying men go to the synagogue because that's the cultural norm, whereas women don't, so it's nothing to do with how they have evolved. Help!
OR, okay, so by showing their commitment men become more 'part of the group' - I get that, but how does that support the evolutionary theory? It seems more likely that this is because they know people better rather than because they do this to become more a member of the group. So, so confused.
'Aggression as an adaptive response' - makes no sense?! Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by chloeee!; 19-12-2010 at 15:26.
- 19-12-2010 15:23