Standard social science model

The term the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) was first introduced to a wide audience by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides in the 1992 edited volume The Adapted Mind,^[1] to describe the "blank slate," social constructionist,or "cultural determinist" perspective that they claim is the dominant theoretical paradigm in the social sciences as they developed during the 20th century. According to this alleged paradigm, the mind is a general-purpose cognitive device shaped almost entirely by culture.^[2]

1 Alleged proponents
2 Alternative theoretical paradigm: The Integrated Model
3 Criticisms
4 References
5 External links
6 Sources
7 Further reading

Alleged proponents

Evolutionary psychologists name several prominent scientists as supposed proponents of the standard social science model, including Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, B. F. Skinner, Richard Lewontin, John Money, and Steven J. Gould.^[3]

Alternative theoretical paradigm: The Integrated Model

Evolutionary psychologists have argued^[4] that the SSSM is now out of date and that a progressive model for the social sciences requires evolutionarily-informed models of nature-nurture interactionism, grounded in the computational theory of mind. Tooby and Cosmides refer to this new model as the Integrated Model (IM).

Tooby and Cosmides^[5] provide several comparisons between the SSSM and the IM, including the following:

Standard Social Science Model	Integrated Model
Humans born a blank slate	Humans are born with a bundle of emotional, motivational and cognitive adaptations
Brain a “general-purpose” computer	Brain is a collection of modular, domain specific processors
Culture/socialization programs behavior	Behavior is the result of interactions between evolved psychological mechanisms and cultural & environmental influences
Cultures free to vary any direction on any trait	Culture itself is based on a universal human nature, and is constrained by it
Biology is relatively unimportant to understand behavior	An analysis of interactions between nature and nurture is important to understand behavior

Criticisms

Richardson (2007) argues that evolutionary psychologists developed the SSSM as a rhetorical technique:^[6] "The basic move is evident in Cosmides and Tooby's most aggressive brief for evolutionary psychology. They want us to accept a dichotomy between what they call the "Standard Social Science Model" (SSSM) and the "Integrated Causal Model" (ICM) they favor ... it offers a false dichotomy between a manifestly untenable view and their own."^[7] Wallace (2010) has also suggested the SSSM to be a false dichotomy and claims that "scientists in the EP tradition wildly overstate the influence and longevity of what they call the Standard Social Science Model (essentially, behaviorism)"^[8]

References

^ Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The adapted mind.
^ "instinct." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. [1].
^ Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate. New York: Penguin. 2002
^ Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The adapted mind.
^ Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992)
^ Richardson, Robert C. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, p. 176.
^ Richardson, Robert C. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology
^ Wallace, B. (2010). Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won't Work,p. 136.

External links

Tooby and Cosmides briefly define the SSSM in their Evolutionary Psychology Primer.

Sources

Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Degler, C. N. 1991. In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, H. 2001. Colonising the Social Sciences? In Rose, H. and Rose, S. (Eds) "Alas Poor Darwin": London, Cape.