Bolhuis, J. J., Brown, G. R., Richardson, R. C., & Laland, K. N. (2011).

Darwin in mind: new

opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biology, 9(7). Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A263520442/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=9c4
afe48
This essay, written by Johan J. Bolhuis, Gillian R. Brown, Robert C. Richardson and
Kevin N. Laland, discusses how evolutionary psychologists must adapt their methods of study
and assumptions to consider modern findings and developments of other fields of psychology
and science. The authors explain the major tenets of evolutionary psychology, describing the
widely-accepted theories like gradualism, universalism, and adaptive lag that shape how
evolutionary psychologists examine the human mind and its evolution. Evolutionary
psychologists think that changes in the brain caused by epigenetics and environment are
predetermined genetic changes that are still a result of universal, evolved traits, which negates
the view of developmental psychologists and neuroscientists who emphasize the plasticity of the
brain and claim that the brain is too complex to be completely determined by genetics. However,
evolutionary and developmental psychologists have started to reach consensus that the human
brain develops as a result of interactions between genetic inheritance, epigenetic factors, and
environmental learning. The authors point out that modern evolutionary psychologists should
consider the recent advancements in genetic research that challenge these theories. The authors
also suggest that evolutionary psychologists have limited their study by considering only the
evolved roles and genetic factors, especially looking at sex-differences and mate selection, and
could improve by looking at modern theories about how population density and availability and
quality of mates affects these traits. The essay discusses how evolutionary psychologists should
adapt methods of empirical study for analyzing evolved cognition and behavior. In conclusion,
evolutionary psychologists need to adapt to modern theories, accept findings of other domains
(niche, developmental, neuroscience), and be open to other theories when studying evolved
characteristics.
This peer-reviewed journal was written by Johan J. Bolhuis, Gillian R. Brown, Robert C.
Richardson and Kevin N. Laland. Johan Bolhuis is a Professor of Cognitive Neurobiology at
Utrecht University; Gillian Brown is a reader at the School of Psychology and Neuroscience of
University of St Andrews; Robert Richardson is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Cincinnati; Kevin Laland is a Professor of Behavioral and Evolutionary Biology at the
University of St Andrews. Each author is an expert in his or her field with multiple peer-
reviewed publications that discuss aspects of evolutionary biology or psychology. Contact
information for the authors (email) is listed at the end of the essay. Additional contact
information, like mailing address and phone number, can easily be found by accessing the
webpage of each author’s respective university. This essay has broad and deep coverage. The
authors begin by stating the general assumptions of evolutionary psychologists, explaining that
“[Evolutionary psychologists argue] that human cognitive processes evolved in response to
selection pressures acting in ancestral conditions--in an environment of evolutionary adaptedness
(EEA)--and are not necessarily adaptive in a contemporary world that has changed radically in
recent millennia” (Bolhuis, Brown, Richardson, & Laland). The authors then go into a detailed
analysis of other assumptions and theories that are derived from the general basis of evolutionary
psychology. The authors give an overview of these theories and then go into detail about
controversies and disagreements between researchers in those fields. For example, while
discussing the theory of universalism, the authors say that evolutionary psychologists place
“emphasis on the concept of human nature, comprising a species-specific repertoire of universal,
evolved psychological mechanisms” (Bolhuis et al.). Further into the essay, they discuss specific
issues and findings about universalism, explaining that from certain perspectives, “the human
mind does not consist of pre-specified programmes, but is built via a constant interplay between
the individual and its environment, a point made by developmental psychologist Daniel Lehrman
many years ago” (Bolhuis et al.). This discussion of universalism also shows the attempt of the
authors to reduce bias and show both sides of the issue. The authors give a variety of evidence
that supports and contradicts the perspective and methods of evolutionary psychology. The
evidence and observations in this essay are accurate and can be corroborated by a variety of
sources, including the 123 references that are cited throughout the paper and listed at the end of
the essay. For example, the authors state that “recent trends in developmental biology and
cognitive neuroscience recognize that the human brain and behaviour are shaped to an important
extent by individual and social learning” (Bolhuis et al.). A recently published article (published
in 2017) by Emily B. Falk and Danielle S. Bassett in the biomedical journal CellPress states that
“brain dynamics shape learning and behavior, including social interaction; likewise, social
contexts alter brain structure and function.” Both Falk and Basset are experts in their field whose
findings can accurately corroborate the information in this journal on evolution; Falk is an
Associate Professor of Communication with secondary appointments in Psychology and
Marketing at the University of Pennsylvania, and Basset is an Associate Professor of
Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania. While this journal was published in 2011,
which exceeds the five-year range of currency for scientific fields, its findings and observations
are still relevant in today’s fields of evolutionary psychology. The majority of information and
conclusions that the authors present is based on over 30 years of trends and advancements in
psychology and neuroscience; therefore, the recommendations about how evolutionary
psychologists should modernize their study are still valuable to the field. The purpose of this
essay is to inform and convince evolutionary psychologists about how they should modernize
their methods of study and adapt to changing psychological theories. The authors clearly state
the purpose, saying that in the essay they will “assess the impact of recent developments in
genetics, evolutionary and developmental biology, paleoecology, and cognitive science on EP
[evolutionary psychology] and then go on to suggest that these developments provide new
avenues for research” (Bolhuis et al.). The essay reflects this purpose as it goes into detail on
multiple topics of evolutionary psychology and how new advancements in related fields should
guide modern study of evolutionary psychology.