Why Men Won't Ask for Directions : The Seductions of Sociobiology

Rating:
Summary: Isn't Life Strange?
Review: (...)

The appeal of Richard Francis' book is simple - the author offers a much-needed corrective to today's popular writings about biology. Let me elaborate. Though evolutionary biology is but one of several vibrant sub-fields in the life sciences - the others include molecular biology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, microbiology, and developmental biology - it is far and away the most written about. Blessed with a group of fine scientists who can write for general readers, equally gifted journalists who are authoritative, and subject matter that lends itself to engrossing stories, evolutionary biology has become part of the intellectual landscape of the 21st century. Even the most casual reader/viewer of newspapers, magazines, and TV has heard about the power of evolution to explain all sorts of intriguing physical forms and behaviors in the animal kingdom, which includes us, human beings. By comparison, the latest discoveries and advances in, for instance, biochemistry and cell biology are almost certainly not known by anyone outside of those fields.

And no one can deny to amazing power of the forces of evolution. However, as often happens with ideas and theories that galvanize individuals across a broad spectrum (past examples include artificial intelligence, chaos theory, and now the genome), many get carried away and the idea is pushed to extreme limits where its application becomes misplaced and its results misleading. This has certainly happened with evolutionary biology, where in some circles adaptation by natural selection has been called upon to explain EVERY physical form, behavior, instinct, etc. Here is where Francis's book is important and provides needed balance. The overall theme of WHY MEN WON'T ASK FOR DIRECTIONS is that evolution explains a lot, but not everything. The second underlying theme is that the latest advances in Developmental Biology (the science that studies how fertilized eggs "develop" into mature organisms) can sometimes better explain behaviors, forms, and features that have either stymied evolutionists, or caused them to promote particularly strained theories.

What makes the book such an enjoyable read is Richard Francis's ability to pick irresistible animals as the focus of his discussions (my personal favorite is the "cleaner wrasse", which is a small fish that spends most of its time "cleaning" the gills of larger fish for food, with the permission of the larger fish, as it were). Each chapter begins with a dilemma that a behavior or form poses for scientists, it continues with ideas that evolutionists have proposed to explain the phenomenon in question, and then concludes with what Developmental Biology has to say about the puzzle. Francis has a bit of an attitude to him (plus he is funny in print, which is a rare talent), but I think that adds to the book -- many of the scientists, social scientists, and writers who embrace the vision of strict adaptationism are so strident in their own writings that Francis is merely giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Francis shows, in one colorful and imaginative chapter after another, that evolution is at work, but it is only able to work with what it is given, and what it is given is the result of developmental biology, the union of egg and sperm and the development of the embryo. For example, Francis addresses the interesting phenomenon of sex change in a chapter entitled, Transgendered.. Incredibly, sex change is widespread among fishes, and it turns out that it should be among certain birds and mammals, too - at least according to evolutionary theory. Given their behavior, Gorillas, elephant seals and peacocks, for example, should be female-to-male sex changers. Francis demonstrates that the reason sex change is so common in fishes, but absent in mammals such as elephant seals, is due to fundamental differences in sexual development in these two groups. In another chapter entitled Alternative Lifestyles, Francis shows how these same differences in sexual development explain why alternative male reproductive tactics are so much more common in fishes than in mammals.

In the chapter entitled, A Textbook Case of Penis Envy, Francis brings developmental considerations to the fore to explain the celebrated male-like phallus of female spotted hyenas. He carefully examines the multiple competing adaptationist explanations for the "masculinized" genitalia. He then introduces some developmental considerations, such as the fact that all hyena fetuses are exposed to high levels of androgens in the womb, to show that some of these hypotheses should be discarded outright, while others deserve further consideration. He concludes this chapter by demonstrating how developmental factors might have interacted with ecological factors in the evolution of this extraordinary trait.

By raising the specter of Developmental Biology, Richard Francis does not weaken the power of Evolutionary Biology. Rather, he enriches it. WHY MEN WON'T ASK FOR DIRECTIONS is a powerful, fact-filled narrative that should be read by everyone who enjoys nature and the life sciences.

Rating:
Summary: Isn't Life Strange?
Review: (...)

The appeal of Richard Francis' book is simple - the author offers a much-needed corrective to today's popular writings about biology. Let me elaborate. Though evolutionary biology is but one of several vibrant sub-fields in the life sciences - the others include molecular biology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, microbiology, and developmental biology - it is far and away the most written about. Blessed with a group of fine scientists who can write for general readers, equally gifted journalists who are authoritative, and subject matter that lends itself to engrossing stories, evolutionary biology has become part of the intellectual landscape of the 21st century. Even the most casual reader/viewer of newspapers, magazines, and TV has heard about the power of evolution to explain all sorts of intriguing physical forms and behaviors in the animal kingdom, which includes us, human beings. By comparison, the latest discoveries and advances in, for instance, biochemistry and cell biology are almost certainly not known by anyone outside of those fields.

And no one can deny to amazing power of the forces of evolution. However, as often happens with ideas and theories that galvanize individuals across a broad spectrum (past examples include artificial intelligence, chaos theory, and now the genome), many get carried away and the idea is pushed to extreme limits where its application becomes misplaced and its results misleading. This has certainly happened with evolutionary biology, where in some circles adaptation by natural selection has been called upon to explain EVERY physical form, behavior, instinct, etc. Here is where Francis's book is important and provides needed balance. The overall theme of WHY MEN WON'T ASK FOR DIRECTIONS is that evolution explains a lot, but not everything. The second underlying theme is that the latest advances in Developmental Biology (the science that studies how fertilized eggs "develop" into mature organisms) can sometimes better explain behaviors, forms, and features that have either stymied evolutionists, or caused them to promote particularly strained theories.

What makes the book such an enjoyable read is Richard Francis's ability to pick irresistible animals as the focus of his discussions (my personal favorite is the "cleaner wrasse", which is a small fish that spends most of its time "cleaning" the gills of larger fish for food, with the permission of the larger fish, as it were). Each chapter begins with a dilemma that a behavior or form poses for scientists, it continues with ideas that evolutionists have proposed to explain the phenomenon in question, and then concludes with what Developmental Biology has to say about the puzzle. Francis has a bit of an attitude to him (plus he is funny in print, which is a rare talent), but I think that adds to the book -- many of the scientists, social scientists, and writers who embrace the vision of strict adaptationism are so strident in their own writings that Francis is merely giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Francis shows, in one colorful and imaginative chapter after another, that evolution is at work, but it is only able to work with what it is given, and what it is given is the result of developmental biology, the union of egg and sperm and the development of the embryo. For example, Francis addresses the interesting phenomenon of sex change in a chapter entitled, Transgendered.. Incredibly, sex change is widespread among fishes, and it turns out that it should be among certain birds and mammals, too - at least according to evolutionary theory. Given their behavior, Gorillas, elephant seals and peacocks, for example, should be female-to-male sex changers. Francis demonstrates that the reason sex change is so common in fishes, but absent in mammals such as elephant seals, is due to fundamental differences in sexual development in these two groups. In another chapter entitled Alternative Lifestyles, Francis shows how these same differences in sexual development explain why alternative male reproductive tactics are so much more common in fishes than in mammals.

In the chapter entitled, A Textbook Case of Penis Envy, Francis brings developmental considerations to the fore to explain the celebrated male-like phallus of female spotted hyenas. He carefully examines the multiple competing adaptationist explanations for the "masculinized" genitalia. He then introduces some developmental considerations, such as the fact that all hyena fetuses are exposed to high levels of androgens in the womb, to show that some of these hypotheses should be discarded outright, while others deserve further consideration. He concludes this chapter by demonstrating how developmental factors might have interacted with ecological factors in the evolution of this extraordinary trait.

By raising the specter of Developmental Biology, Richard Francis does not weaken the power of Evolutionary Biology. Rather, he enriches it. WHY MEN WON'T ASK FOR DIRECTIONS is a powerful, fact-filled narrative that should be read by everyone who enjoys nature and the life sciences.

Rating:
Summary: A truly fascinating book
Review: This book does three things at once. One might not think it was possible to successfully combine all three in one book, but Francis does succeed. First, it contains a very accessible and lively introduction to recent biological work about sex and sex differences, especially in the vertebrates (animals with backbones, like us). Some of the details and anecdotes here are extremely surprising and strange -- in the animal kingdom sex *is* often strange. The book goes quite deeply into the biology here, but remains vivid and readable throughout.

Secondly, the book contains a fairly intense and sustained criticism of some of the current strategies and habits of thought that are applied to these questions in some parts of biology and psychology. Francis thinks that there is far too much emphasis on 'functional explanation,' on the search for the answer to 'why?' questions as opposed to 'how?' questions. Here the book is quite unorthodox and challenging. It is common to think that there is now, in biology, a harmonious division of labor between work on 'how?' questions (work on mechanisms), and work on functional explanations that seek to tell us 'why' the biological world works as it does. It is thought by many that ordinary Darwinism provides us with a straightforward integration of the two kinds of investigation. Francis, in contrast, thinks that many people allow the search for functional explanation to dominate their work. If we understood the 'how' better, we would see that many 'why' questions are transformed or even dissolved.

Thirdly, the book is in many ways a contribution to the philosophy of science. Francis thinks that we need to be much more suspicious of a set of ideas, concepts and strategies that have been embraced by many philosophers of science. Francis thinks that some parts of science have allowed themselves to depart from the materialist pattern of explanation that is appropriate for biology and related sciences. In particular, he thinks that the current enthusiasm for abstact informational and functional concepts is far more antagonistic to materialist and naturalistic projects than people realize.

On these more theoretical and philosophical issues, it is very hard to work out whether Francis is right. I tend to think that he goes too far. (Here I might add that I know the author and have discussed these issues with him, though my own work does not figure in the book.) But the book is extremely valuable as a challenge to some very popular ways of thinking in these areas.

So although the book can be read just as a lively, vivid introduction to the strange sex lives of animals closely related to us, it is also a very deep and careful piece of argumentation. Sometimes Francis is rather polemical in his style, and I can see why some readers (and reviewers) might find the tone a little combative in places. But to me, this makes the book all the more enjoyable to read. I recommend it to anyone interested in sex who also enjoys an intellectual workout.

Rating:
Summary: An Intemperate and Unbalanced Critique
Review: This book is a testimonial to the fact that Sociobiology continues to go against the grain of many behavioral scientists, long after the ideological debates of the previous century have subsided, and at a time when a more measured approach to the contribution of this strain of biological and social theory is plainly available. The novelty of this book is that it counterposes sociobiology to developmental biology rather than its traditional foe, anti-biological approaches to human sociality. This counterposition is particularly curious, since many developmental biologists consider this the age of "evo-devo", where the synergistic interaction of evolutionary and developmental modeling are increasingly recognized. Despite Francis' concerted and repeated attempt to portray sociobiology and behavioral developmental biology as alternative approaches to understanding social behavior, I remain completely unconvinced.

Francis writing style and mode of reasoning are profoundly distasteful to me, though others might enjoy it. Francis relishes in contrasting ideas that are in principle mutually consistent and even reinforcing. He draws the intellectual landscape in stark black and white/good and evil, where I generally see the textured grays of creatively contrasting and equally plausible ideas just waiting for some insightful researcher to draw them together into a satisfying explanatory framework. For instance, he depicts the search for the evolutionary origins of social behavior as the "paranoic" search for "teleological explanations." Metaphors relating to psychological illness when speaking of "adaptationist theory" recur incessantly throughout this distinctly intemperate book. Evolutionary psychology, for instance, is flippantly referred to as "evo-psycho."

Even substantively, Francis' method of dealing approaches alternative to his own is, to my mind, shallow and distasteful. I was taught that when disagreeing with a theory, one must first present the theory in as strong and coherent manner as possible, and critique only the most shining and forceful of the theory's ostensible successes. Francis, by contrast, is a bottom-feeder who will launch his missiles against any random representative of the opposing school. Indeed, despite that fact that more than one-third of this book is devoted to notes, index, and bibliography, Francis rarely deigns to cite directly his opponent, rather being content to provide an broad description of the field in question. Typical is the argument relating to the title of book. I don't know of a serious sociobiological argument as to why men don't ask for directions. I don't even know if it's a true fact in search of an explanation. Francis, nevertheless, treats the issue as though it had some intrinsic scientific value.

Francis is smart enough, however, to recognize that he is no match for the greats of the field, so when George Williams, Ronald Fisher, John Maynard Smith, Edward Wilson, or Niko Tinbergen is mentioned, Francis abandons the derogatory bravado and accurately describes the eminently reasonable positions they have taken on the issue of the relationship between evolution and development, adaptation and developmental constraints, and the other topics treated in this book.

The stance taken by Francis is a shame, because there are
super-adaptationists that tend to consider just-so story as adequate explanations, and are loathe to deploy any non-adapationist argument.

Francis' chapter on the mimicking capacity, perhaps the best in the book, is a case in point. Francis defends the sensory exploitation hypothesis ably against the classical runaway selection and costly signaling approaches to modeling mate choice, and effectively defends the theory that the mockingbird's mimicking capacity is simply a by-product of their song-learning versatility. This versatility may itself have adaptive value, but the fact that many bird species that occupy ecological niches similar to that of the mockingbird lack its versatility calls this into question. Indeed, Francis presents a welcome argument to the effect that exotic animal characteristics are unlikely to be adaptation, or they would be more widely share among species share the exotic species' life style and ecological niche. The female hyena's hypertrophied clitoris, the elephant's trunk, hermaphroditism fish, the giraffe's neck, and the human brain may all be examples of characteristics that occurred despite, rather than because of, adaptationist dynamics.

Francis is insistent that sociobiology can only countenance causal forces from physiology and genetic constitution to social constitution, and not vice versa. He contrasts this view, which he calls "misguided materialism" with the developmental view that social organization can affect brain physiology in the short run and genetic structure in the long run. Presumably he never heard of the Baldwin Effect (the term does not appear in his index), despite its centarian age, or the gene-culture coevolutionary models of Cavalli-sforza and Feldman, Boyd and Richerson, and a host of related analyses that have populated the biology, anthropology, and even economics journals for the past quarter century.

Perhaps the most egregious chapter in the book is "Sex without SEX," in which he critiques the adaptationist theory of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is not an adaptation in vertebrates. Rather, he argues, there is a developmental constraint against hermaphrodism, and adaptationists are too blind to see this shining truth. Francis' argument is shabby and incorrect. First, sexual reproduction is extremely costly and could not persist if it did not provide offsetting advantages. Second, as he notes, there are many hermaphrodite fish species, and lizard species as well, but they appear to be evolutionary dead ends. This could be because there are development constraints in vertebrates (there certainly are, in the form of gene imprinting, in mammals), but this remains to be determined. Third, there is no general non-adaptationist theory of sexual reproduction, to my knowledge. He certainly presents none.

Historically, developmentalists have been indifferent or hostile to evolutionary modeling because the do not see how such dynamic historical modelshelp them develop the structural and developmental mechanisms characteristic of living organisms. This stance is no longer fruitful. We now understand that evolutionary models do not prove anything. Rather, they suggest hypotheses to be explored and substantiated. Adaptationist arguments are essential because they suggest the function of homologous and analogous physiological structures. Charting the development of behaviorally-relevant characteristics, such as brain size and social organization, the structure of brains and vocal apparati, using the paleographic evidence, sheds critical light on the path to successfully modeling biological development from the level of cell to that of the complex animal or human society. We increasingly need researchers to explore the synergy between development and evolution. This ill-tempered book could have been written in that spirit, but it was not.

Rating:
Summary: The Problem with Teleological Thinking
Review: When I was a graduate student I cut my teeth on books by George C. Williams and Ernst Mayr, as well as having several important aspects of scientific methodology drummed into my head. I learned that the individual phenotype was the target of selection, because it was the visible manifestation of the organism in the real world. I was also taught, emphatically, that you had to follow the evidence, not let your hypotheses run wild. You just did not extrapolate beyond your data! J. Henri Fabre (the 19th Century French entomologist) took that last idea to an extreme and denied the utility of even solid theory, thus refusing to accept Darwin's ideas on the basis that they were too speculative. In that Fabre was wrong (as he was in his insistence that insects were totally automatons.) Still one can easily go too far in the other direction and (unfortunately) some biologists, especially sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, have done so.

Richard C. Francis in his new book "Why Men Won't Ask for Directions" has made several pointed criticisms of teleological answers to why question (as opposed to how questions) in biology. In some ways I think that he has been a little too hard on the sociobiologists, who have certainly added to our knowledge- particularly in regard to how social insect societies work- and have brought up some important aspects of human behavior, but the points he makes are well taken. A few more strident evolutionary psychologists have indeed gone off on a teleological binge! Some of their "just so" stories are no more convincing to me than the creation story involving a god or gods making species. Evolution is not purposeful. It is in essence a tinkerer (more like a farmer using bailing wire to fix a tractor), not a designer (an engineer drawing up plans for a new bridge), and evolutionary events are not planned by gods or nature substituting for gods, but are driven by contingency.

Also, organisms are more plastic in their behavior than we generally give them credit for and we have to be very careful in using anthropomorphic (unfortunately rampant in some sociobiological writings) or teleological language to describe their behaviors, and the origins of behaviors, or we tend to bias our interpretation. One of Fabre's flaws in his studies of hunting wasps was that he insisted on the absolute rigidity of the behavior of his subjects (Sphecidae, Scoliidae and Pompilidae), while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. This was eloquently pointed out by George and Elizabeth Peckham in their later studies of wasp behavior. Like Fabre, sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists tend to be absolute in their view of all organisms being totally the result of an adaptation (driven by genes) to a given environment. I think in order to make a case for such an interpretation you must, like Fabre, throw out any data that does not agree with your hypothesis.

Teleology is fine, as long as you don't get caught up in the idea (too easy to do) that it actually explains things. Mayr says that it is a powerful heuristic methodology, and he is probably correct because humans like to have just so stories because they understand them. But are these stories a true reflection of reality? Maybe so (as Mark Twain might say), but any hypothesis that results in extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary evidence. And unfounded ideas about human nature may actually be dangerous, as they may influence policy makers in the areas of economics, education, social structure, and even warfare. I would feel much better if the sociobiologists explored alternative explainations more and gave the adaptationist model a rigorous testing. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin may be wrong in postulating the Spandrels of San Marco (non-adaptive traits as a side effect of selection), but I have yet to see a better idea come up. Instead we have an explosion of often far-fetched "evolutionary" explainations for the adaptiveness of this or that, such as homosexuality being an adaptive trait to produce helpers to raise close kin! Will we "find" a gene or part of the brain that exists solely to write Beethoven's 9th Symphony next? Such weak foundations lay evolution open to attacks by creationists and others who will use the faults in teleological thinking to push their own very teleological program.

To me both genetic determinism-adaptationism (sociobiology and evolutionary psychology) at its worst and behavioral determinism (blank slateism) at its worst are poor substitutes for sound theory based on evidence that is (as Karl Popper put it) FALSIFIABLE (i.e. testable in such a way that it can be proven false.) Teleological thinking, as pointed out by Francis, just cannot meet this test.

This book is a generally well-stated critique of the current regrettable trends in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology and should be read by every evolutionary biologist and anyone else who is interested in evolution.