|
Results for sociobiology
|
On this page:
|
The study of the biological determinants of social behavior, based on the theory that such behavior is often genetically transmitted and subject to evolutionary processes.
sociobiological so'ci·o·bi'o·log'i·cal (-bī'ə-lŏj'ĭ-kəl) adj.A scientific discipline that applies principles of evolutionary biology to the study of animal and human social behavior. It is a synthesis of ethology, ecology, and evolutionary theory in which social behavior is viewed as a product of natural selection and other biological processes. Although most of the research in sociobiology has focused on understanding the behavior of nonhumans, sociobiological explanations have been used to interpret patterns of human behavior as well. See also Ecology; Ethology; Organic evolution.
Sociobiology predicts that individuals will behave in ways that maximize their fitness (their success at projecting copies of their genetic material into succeeding generations) and argues that such behaviors can arise through the same evolutionary processes that operate on other trait systems. The central principle underlying sociobiology is that an individual's behavior is shaped, in part, by its genes, and thus is heritable and subject to natural selection. Natural selection is simply the result of the differential survival and reproduction of individuals who show heritable variation in a trait. The variants of a trait that convey greater fitness will increase in frequency in a population over time. The distinctive sociobiological perspective on behavior views behaviors as strategies that have evolved through natural selection to maximize an individual's fitness. Note that under this view there is absolutely no need to assume that maximizing fitness is in any way a conscious goal underlying an animal's behavior—successful behavior is simply an emergent result of the evolutionary process and not the force driving that process. See also Behavioral ecology.
Altruism
Animals sometimes behave in ways that seem to reduce their own personal fitness while increasing that of other individuals. For example, in many species of social mammals and in numerous species of birds, individuals commonly give alarm vocalizations that alert others to the presence of a predator while seemingly rendering themselves more conspicuous to attack. Evolutionary biologists since Charles Darwin have noted that these seemingly altruistic acts pose a challenge to the notion of an animal's behavior being a strategy to maximize individual fitness. See also Social insects; Social mammals.
One resolution to this paradox comes from taking a “gene's eye view” of evolution, which recognizes that Darwinian fitness (an individual's success in producing offspring) is simply a specific case of the more general concept of inclusive fitness. Because an individual shares genes with its relatives, there are actually two different routes by which it can pass on copies of those genes to the next generation: first, through personal or direct reproduction; and second, by helping relatives to reproduce. Inclusive fitness is a composite measure of an individual's genetic contribution to the next generation that considers both of these routes.
Animals who behave altruistically toward relatives may, in fact, be behaving selfishly in the genetic sense if their behavior sufficiently enhances their inclusive fitness through its effects on the survival and reproduction of relatives. This phenomenon is referred to as kin selection. Because close relatives share more genes, on average, with an individual than do distant relatives, such seemingly altruistic behavior tends to be directed toward closer kin.
Another solution to the altruism paradox—one that can even operate among nonrelatives under certain conditions—is reciprocity. If the recipient of some altruistic behavior is likely to repay a donor in the future, it may be beneficial for the donor to perform the behavior even at some immediate cost to its own fitness. This is especially true if the cost is low and the anticipated benefit is high. Examples include food sharing among unrelated vampire bats and alliance behavior in some primates.
Under some conditions, it is possible for altruism to result from natural selection operating at the level of groups, rather than at the level of individuals or genes (for example, if groups containing altruists were at a sufficient selective advantage compared with groups containing only selfish individuals). However, within such groups, selection acting on individuals would still tend to favor selfishness over altruism. In any event, much of the cogency of sociobiology has resulted from the recognition that selection seems to be most powerful when it acts at lower levels—notably, genes and individuals rather than groups or species.
Other social strategies
Over the past three decades, the sociobiological view of behavior as an evolved strategy for maximizing inclusive fitness has proven to be a powerful explanatory paradigm for investigating many other aspects of animal social behavior. The phenomenon of sociality, for example, has been extensively explored from this perspective. Each species—and individuals within each species—can be investigated as to the relative costs and benefits associated with the decision of whether or not to be social. Similar considerations apply to many other strategic (though typically unconscious) decisions that animals make during their lives, such as whether to reproduce sexually, when in life to begin reproducing (with regard to season and age at maturation), how many partners to mate with and who those partners should be, whether to compete with other individuals over access to partners, and whether to bestow parental care and the level of care to give. See also Maternal behavior; Reproductive behavior; Sexual dimorphism.
Some animals lead very solitary lives, but others, including humans, live in complex social groups. Sociobiology is the branch of biology that deals with the behaviour of these social animals. The term was coined by the Harvard entomologist, Edward O. Wilson, whose book of the same name brought to a wider public several important developments in theoretical biology that had been made during the 1960s and 1970s.
These developments addressed the phenomenon of altruism, which had long been seen as a problem in evolutionary biology (see evolution). Altruism is defined by biologists as any act that makes the recipient more likely to survive and reproduce while reducing the donor's own reproductive success. Since natural selection cares only about reproductive success, it seemed that altruism could not have evolved by such a process. And yet it was everywhere visible, from the parental care exhibited by mammals and birds to the selfless devotion of worker ants to their nest.
In the 1960s and 1970s, two solutions were proposed to this problem. The first of these was the theory of kin selection, which was first proposed by W. D. Hamilton in 1964. Hamilton argued that the spread of a gene did not depend only on its effects on the reproductive success of the body in which it sat, but also on its effects on the reproductive success of close kin, because they are likely to carry the same gene. A gene that caused its owner to risk his or her life to save several siblings, each of whom has a 50% chance of having the same gene, would spread quickly through the population, even if it often caused its owner to die childless. As Richard Dawkins put it graphically in The Selfish Gene (1976), the theory of kin selection showed that genes could proliferate by helping copies of themselves in other bodies.
Hamilton's theory of kin selection explains altruism between closely related individuals, but what about altruism between unrelated organisms? This is where the second solution to the problem of altruism comes in. In 1971, Robert Trivers argued that altruism may often be merely apparent, since it will turn out on a closer analysis to be a reciprocal exchange of favours. Trivers dubbed the phenomenon ‘reciprocal altruism’, and argued that the appearance of altruism is generated by the fact that the reciprocation may not be immediate. For example, a vampire bat may give up some of its food to a hungry companion one day without any immediate reward, but only because it expects that the favour will be returned in the future. In the years following Trivers' initial paper many biologists thought that reciprocal altruism was widespread in the animal kingdom. More recently, however, considerable doubt has been cast on this assumption.
The theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism have led to much productive research in animal behaviour. When applied to human behaviour, however, they have generated much more controversy. Wilson's Sociobiology, for example, unleashed a torrent of criticism when it was published in 1975. Although he dedicated only a short final chapter of the book to human behaviour, the ensuing debate focused almost entirely on the possibility of applying sociobiological tools to humans. Social scientists, in particular, objected to such biological explanations on the grounds that they did not do justice to the rich cultural variability of human behaviour (see instinct).
After the initial backlash against sociobiology in the late 1970s, attempts to apply theories such as those of Hamilton and Trivers to human behaviour regained popularity during the 1990s. The second generation of sociobiologists, who are much more circumspect in avoiding some of the brash pronouncements of the 1970s, go under the name of ‘evolutionary psychologists’. Evolutionary psychology, while in many ways the heir of sociobiology, differs in stressing the importance of the mental mechanisms that mediate selective pressures and behaviour. It is thus more mentalist than sociobiology, and draws on the explanatory tools of cognitive science, such as the use of the language of information processing to describe the mind.
However, unlike cognitive scientists of a more classical bent, evolutionary psychologists reject the idea of a central ‘executive’ within the mind, arguing instead that co-ordinated behaviour emerges from a collection of psychological mechanisms, none of which is ‘in control’. These ‘mental modules’ are thought to be designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems that were recurrently faced by our ancestors. For example, it is has been hypothesized that there is a module for detecting cheats, another for recognizing faces, and so on.
Like sociobiology, evolutionary psychology has attracted more than its fair share of critics. Some of these attack evolutionary psychology for allegedly excessive speculation, while others have ethical and political objections. Evolutionary psychologists reject both kinds of criticism. The debate goes on.
— Dylan Evans
Bibliography
See also evolution, human; genetics, human.
An attempt to explain social behaviour by reference to modern biological theories and by natural selection in particular. The ‘new synthesis’ of biology and the social sciences, promised by E. O. Wilson amongst others, rests squarely upon Darwinian population biology, comparative ethology, modern evolutionary theory—once that theory had been purged of Lamarckism—and finally upon kin-selection. Consequently the sociobiologists' central belief is that, while not all biological phenomena are adaptive in each moment of time, nevertheless natural selection has a pervasive role in shaping all classes of traits in organisms. They have done best at explaining the natural selection of altruistic behaviour. In principle, then, all significant human social behaviour ought also to be explained by its biological basis. And, again in principle, it ought to be possible to establish the co-evolution of genes and culture. Whatever the truth of these claims, some practitioners of sociobiology have given the impression that they are genetic determinists. Debate about these issues has taken up a disproportionate amount of time and energy.
— John Halliday
For more information on sociobiology, visit Britannica.com.
The academic discipline best known through the work of Edward O. Wilson who coined the term in his Sociobiology: the New Synthesis (1975). The approach to human behaviour is based on the premise that all social behaviour has a biological basis, and seeks to understand that basis in terms of genetic encoding for features that are then selected for through evolutionary history. The philosophical problem is essentially one of methodology: of finding criteria for identifying features that can usefully be explained in this way, and for finding criteria for assessing various genetic stories that might provide useful explanations.
Among the features that are proposed for this kind of explanation are such things as male dominance, male promiscuity versus female fidelity, propensities to sympathy and other emotions, and the limited altruism characteristic of human beings. The strategy has proved unnecessarily controversial, with proponents accused of ignoring the influence of environmental and social factors in moulding people's characteristics (e.g. at the limit of silliness, by postulating a ‘gene for poverty’). However there is no need for the approach to commit such errors, since the feature explained sociobiologically may be indexed to environment: for instance it may be a propensity to develop some feature in some social or other environment (or even a propensity to develop propensities…). The main problem is to separate genuine explanation from speculative just so stories which may or may not identify real selective mechanisms. See also biology, philosophy of; evolutionary psychology.
An approach which attempts to explain the behaviour of both animals and human beings in terms of biological principles.
The study of social organization and behaviour in humans and other animals which uses biological explanations based on the premise that all behaviour is adaptive.
The theory first gained attention when Edward O. Wilson of Harvard published Sociobiology (1975); it became controversial when he proposed extending the theory to explain human social behavior and psychological patterns. Critics charged that this application of sociobiology was a form of genetic determinism and that it failed to take into account the complexity of human behavior and the impact of the environment on human development.
Scientists have recently discovered individual genes in laboratory worms that influence social behavior, such as gregarious feeding habits. Continued research of this kind, into what has been called the “molecular biology of social behavior,” is likely to provide new insights into sociobiology.
An area of inquiry in biology, still somewhat controversial but gaining wider acceptance. Its central tenet is that many human behavioral and social traits are genetically inherited and are thus determined by genetic makeup and not culture.
 |
This article or section includes a list of references or a list of external
links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations. |
| Sociology |
|
Portal · History |
| General Aspects |
|---|
|
Applied sociology · Public
sociology |
| Related fields & subfields |
|
Demography · Social movements Social psychology · Sociolinguistics Sociology of: culture · deviance economics · education · gender knowledge · law · politics · religion science · stratification · work |
| Categories & Lists |
|
|
Sociobiology is a synthesis of scientific disciplines that attempts to explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages the behaviors may have. It is often considered a branch of biology and sociology, but also draws from ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archeology, population genetics and other disciplines. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely related to the fields of human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.
Sociobiology has become one of the greatest scientific controversies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, especially in the context of explaining human behavior. Criticism, most notably made by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centers on sociobiology's contention that genes play a central role in human behavior and that variation in traits such as aggressiveness can be explained by variation in peoples' biology and is not necessarily a product of the person's social environment. Many sociobiologists, however, cite a complex relationship between nature and nurture. In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist branch of sociobiology with less controversial focuses.
Sociobiology is based on the idea that some animal behaviors (both social and individual) are heritable and can be affected by natural selection. It assumes that some behaviors have evolved over time, similar to the way that physical traits are thought to have evolved. Therefore, it predicts that animals will act in ways that have proven to be evolutionarily successful over time, which can result in the formation of complex social processes that have proven to be conducive to evolutionary fitness.
The discipline seeks to explain animal and human behavior as products of natural selection, thus behavior is seen as an effort to preserve ones genes in the population. Inherent in sociobiological reasoning is the idea that some behaviors can be "passed down" from generation to generation, and therefore certain genes or gene combinations must carry particular behavioral traits.
For example, newcoming dominant male lions often will kill cubs in the pride that do not belong to them. This behavior is successful in evolutionary terms because killing the cubs eliminates competition with his own offspring and causes the nursing females to come into heat faster, thus allowing more of his genes to enter into the population. Sociobiologists would view this instinctual cub-killing behavior as being "passed down" through the genes of successfully reproducing male lions, whereas non-killing behavior may have "died out" as those lions were not as successful in reproducing.
A genetic basis for instinctive behavioral traits among non-human species, such as in the above example, is commonly accepted among many biologists; however, attempting to use a genetic basis to explain complex behaviors in human societies has remained extremely controversial.
The word "sociobiology" was coined by Edward O. Wilson in the 1975 book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis and antecedants of sociobiological thinking can be traced to the work of Robert Trivers and William D. Hamilton. The book pioneered and popularized the attempt to explain the evolutionary mechanics behind social behaviors such as altruism, aggression, and nurturence, primarily in ants (Wilson's own research specialty) but also in other animals. The final chapter of the book is devoted to sociobiological explanations of human behavior, and Wilson later wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book, On Human Nature, that addressed human behavior specifically.
Sociobiologists believe that human behavior, as well as nonhuman animal behavior, can be partly explained as the outcome of natural selection. They contend that in order fully to understand behavior, it must be analyzed in terms of evolutionary considerations.
Natural selection is considered fundamental to evolutionary theory, and asserts that hereditary traits which increase an organisms ability to survive and reproduce will be more greatly represented in subsequent generations, i.e., they will be "selected for". Thus, inherited behavioral mechanisms that allowed an organism a greater chance of surviving and/or reproducing would be more likely to survive in present organisms. Many biologists accept that inherited adaptive behaviors are present in nonhuman animal species. However, there is a great deal of controversy over the application of evolutionary models to humans both within evolutionary biology itself and the social sciences.
Sociobiology is based upon two fundamental premises:
Sociobiology uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions and explanations of animal behavior. Two categories are at the species level; two, at the individual level. The species-level categories (often called “ultimate explanations”) are
The individual-level categories are
Sociobiologists are interested in how behavior can be explained logically as a result of selective pressures in the history of a species. Thus, they are often interested in instinctive, or intuitive behavior, and in explaining the similarities, rather than the differences, between cultures. For example, mothers within many species of mammals – including humans – are very protective of their offspring. Sociobiologists reason that this protective behavior likely evolved over time because it helped those individuals which had the characteristic to survive and reproduce. Over time, individuals of species that did not exhibit such protective behaviors likely lost their offspring and ultimately died out. In this way, the social behavior is believed to have evolved in a fashion similar to other types of nonbehavioral adaptations, such as (for example) fur or the sense of smell. Sociobiologists may therefore argue that the evolutionary mechanism behind the behavior is genetic.
Individual genetic advantage often fails to explain certain social behaviors as a result of gene-centred selection, and evolution may also act upon groups. The mechanisms responsible for group selection employ paradigms and population statistics borrowed from game theory. E.O. Wilson argued that altruistic individuals must reproduce their own altruistic genetic traits for altruism to survive. When altruists lavish their resources on non-altruists at the expense of their own kind, the altruists tend to die out and the others tend to grow. In other words, altruists must practice the ethic that "charity begins at home."
Within sociobiology, a social behavior is first explained as a sociobiological hypothesis by finding an evolutionarily stable strategy that matches the observed behavior. Stability of a strategy can be difficult to prove, but usually, a well-formed strategy will predict gene frequencies. The hypothesis can be supported by establishing a correlation between the gene frequencies predicted by the strategy, and those expressed in a population. It must be noted that measurement of genes and gene-frequencies can be problematic, because a simple statistical correlation can be open to charges of circularity (Circularity can occur if the measurement of gene frequency indirectly uses the same measurements that describe the strategy).
Altruism between social insects and littermates has been explained in such a way. Altruistic behavior in some animals has been correlated to the degree of genome shared between altruistic individuals. A quantitative description of infanticide by male harem-mating animals when the alpha male is displaced. Female infanticide and fetal resorption in rodents are active areas of study. In general, females with more bearing opportunities may value offspring less. Also, females may arrange bearing opportunities to maximize the food and protection from mates.
An important concept in sociobiology is that temperamental traits within a gene pool and between gene pools exist in an ecological balance. Just as an expansion of a sheep population might encourage the expansion of a wolf population, an expansion of altruistic traits within a gene pool may also encourage the expansion of individuals with dependent traits.
Sociobiology is often associated with arguments over the "genetic" basis of intelligence. While sociobiology is predicated on the observation that genes do affect behavior, it is perfectly consistent to be a sociobiologist whilst arguing that measured IQ variations between individuals reflect mainly cultural or economic rather than genetic factors. However, many critics point out that the usefulness of sociobiology as an explanatory tool breaks down once a trait is so variable as to no longer be exposed to selective pressures. In order to explain aspects of human intelligence as the outcome of selective pressures, it must be demonstrated that those aspects are inherited, or genetic.
Researchers performing twin studies have argued that behavioral traits such as creativity, extroversion and aggressiveness are between 45% to 75% genetic, and intelligence is said by some to be about 80% genetic after one matures (discussed at Intelligence quotient#Genetics vs environment). However, critics (such as the evolutionary geneticist R. C Lewontin) have highlighted serious flaws in twin studies, such as the inability of researchers to separate environmental, genetic, and dialectic effects on twins[1], and twin studies as a tool for determining the heritability of behavioral traits in humans have been largely abandoned.
Criminality is actively under study, but extremely controversial. There are arguments that in some environments criminal behavior might be adaptive [1].
The application of sociobiology to humans was immediately controversial. Several academics opposed to Wilson's "Sociobiology" created "The Sociobiology Study Group" to counter his ideas. Many critics quickly appeared, both within evolutionary biology and outside of it. Some of the most noteworthy critics have included:
Many critics draw an intellectual link between sociobiology and biological determinism, referring to the social Darwinism and eugenics movements of the early 20th century, and to more recent ideas such as the IQ test controversy of the early 1970s. Steven Pinker argues that critics have been overly swayed by politics and a "fear" of biological determinism[9]. However, all these critics have claimed that sociobiology fails on scientific grounds, independent of their political critiques. In particular, Lewontin, Rose & Kamin drew a detailed distinction between the politics and history of an idea and its scientific validity[10], as has Stephen Jay Gould [11].
Wilson and his supporters counter the intellectual link by denying that Wilson had a political agenda, still less a right-wing
one. They pointed out that Wilson had personally adopted a number of liberal political stances and had attracted progressive sympathy for his outspoken
environmentalism. They argued that as scientists they had a duty to uncover the "truth"
whether that was politically correct or not. They argued that sociobiology does
not necessarily lead to any particular political ideology as many critics implied. Many
subsequent sociobiologists, including Robert Wright, Anne Campbell, Frans de Waal and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, have used sociobiology to argue quite separate points. Noam Chomsky came to the defense of sociobiology's methodology, noting that it was the same methodology he
used in his work on linguistics. However, he roundly criticized the sociobiologists' actual conclusions about humans as lacking
substance. He also noted that the anarchist Peter Kropotkin had made similar arguments
in his book
Wilson's defenders also claimed that the critics had greatly overstated the degree of his biological determinism. Wilson's
claims that he had never meant to imply what ought to be, only what is the case are supported by his writings,
which are descriptive, not prescriptive. However, many critics[13] have pointed out that the language of sociobiology often slips from "is" to "ought", leading
sociobiologists to make arguments against social reform on the basis that socially progressive societies are at odds with our
innermost nature. For example, some groups have supported positions of ethnic nepotism
by arguing, as Richard Dawkins summarized (critically), "kin selection provides the basis for favoring your own race as distinct from other races, as a kind of
generalization of favoring your own close family as opposed to other individuals' kin
selection."[14] Views such as this, however, are
often criticized as examples of the naturalistic fallacy, when reasoning jumps from
descriptions about what is to prescriptions about what ought to be. (A common example is approving of all wars if
scientific evidence showed warfare was part of human nature.) It has also been argued that opposition to stances considered
anti-social, such as ethnic nepotism, are based on moral assumptions, not bioscientific assumptions, meaning that it is not vulnerable to being disproved by bioscientific advances
(Pinker, 2001, p. 145). The history of this debate, and others related to it, are
covered in detail by Cronin (1992), Segerstråle (2000) and Alcock (2001). Adaptationists such as Steven Pinker have also suggested that the debate has a strong ad
hominem component. Some suggest that the controversy over the relative importance of various factors would be a quiet
debate over subtleties if the critics were less prone to caricaturing their opponents[citation needed].
Within the scientific community, objections have been raised to many of the ethnocentric assumptions of early sociobiology, the experimental designs employed, and to the sampling and mathematical methods used in forming conclusions. Critics argue that the claims of sociobiologist "'psychobiological extremists' have been stretched far beyond what the evidence can support"[15]. Four key criticisms are made regularly:
In the biological sciences, "anthropomorphism" is the ascribing of human motivations to animal behaviors. For example, the assumption that when a dog barks, it is because it is "angry" (when there is no way we can see what is in a dog's mind and compare it to the human concept of "anger"). Critics of sociobiology accuse it of the same fallacy. For example, E.O. Wilson used altruism in ant societies as a model for altruism in human societies[16]. However, critics such as Alfie Kohn[17] have pointed out there is no evidence for a one-to-one correlation between an act of self-sacrifice in a worker ant and an act of sacrifice from an altruistic person, and thus no reason to think the situations are truly analogous.
Critics such as Gould, Lewontin, Rose & Kamin argue that sociobiology regularly commits the reification fallacy; where abstract behaviors are treated as actual "objects" within the mind, when there is no (or insufficient) evidence to suppose that such behaviors represent true discreet "traits".[18] The classic example is of IQ; an IQ score is a statistical principle component (dubbed g) taken from the scores of several artificial mental tests, and many researchers early in the 20th century came to treat this g as a genuine thing within the brain[19], with no evidence whatsoever.
Sociobiologists are accused of being "super" adaptationists, believing that a given trait can be explained as an adaptation. This is one of the fundamental emphases of sociobiology that distinguishes it from other theories of human behaviour. In particular, evolutionary theorists such as Elisabeth Vrba, Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould have examined and popularized many alternate, non-adaptive pathways which evolution can take to produce the behaviors seen in animals and (particularly) in humans. Sociobiology, by definition, concentrates solely on adaptation as an explanation for behavior.[20]
Adaptationist researchers respond by asserting that they, too, follow George Williams' depiction of adaptation as an "onerous concept" that should only be applied in light of strong evidence. This evidence can be generally characterized as the successful prediction of novel phenomena based on the hypothesis that design details of adaptations should fit a complex evolved design to respond to a specific set of selection pressures. In evolutionary psychology, researchers such as David Buss contend that the bulk of research findings that were uniquely predicted through adaptationist hypothesizing comprise evidence of the methods' validity.
In evolutionary science, a "Just So story" (named for the fables created by Rudyard Kipling) is a neat adaptive explanation of the evolution of some trait that does not rest on any evidence beyond its own internal logic. A Just-So story can be generated to argue for any trait, and examples exist within sociobiological literature of traits which have been explained with exactly opposite stories. Sociobiologists themselves have asserted that the creation of evolutionary stories is an infinitely malleable and playful affair[21], although they rarely acknowledge the problem this creates: an "evolutionary fable" or "Just-So" story can be twisted in any imaginable way to avoid falsification.
Science is distinguished from pseudo-sciences by a process of analysis (derived from the philosopher Karl Popper) which emphasizes the falsifiability of scientific theories. One can only be confident of a theory if it theoretically can be proven wrong, but isn't. Critics believe that proponents of sociobiology do not allow their theories to be falsifiable, rendering it a pseudo-science. Sociobiologists / adaptationists would disagree, and point to volumes of studies published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals wherein hypotheses have been subjected to rigorous empirical tests.
Concepts:
Well-known sociobiologists:
Books:
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Dansk (Danish)
n. - sociobiologi
Nederlands (Dutch)
sociobiologie
Français (French)
n. - socio-biologie
Deutsch (German)
n. - Soziobiologie
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - κοινωνιοβιολογία
Italiano (Italian)
sociobiologia
Português (Portuguese)
n. - sócio-biologia (f)
Русский (Russian)
социобиология
Español (Spanish)
n. - sociobiología
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - samhällsbiologisk
中文（简体） (Chinese (Simplified))
社会生物学
中文（繁體） (Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 社會生物學
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) أجتماعي أحيائي "باي- ولوجي "
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - חקר ההיבטים הביולוגיים של ההתנהגות החברתית של חיות ואנשים, ביולוגיה חברתית
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
To select your translation preferences click here.
Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "sociobiology" at WikiAnswers.
Copyrights:
 |
 | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Sci-Tech Encyclopedia. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Copyright © 2005 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| World of the Body. The Oxford Companion to the Body. Copyright © 2001, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Philosophy Dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Copyright © 1994, 1996, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Archaeology Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Copyright © 2002, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| Sports Science and Medicine. The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine. Copyright © Michael Kent 1998, 2006, 2007. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more |
 |
| Science Dictionary. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Sociobiology". Read more |
 |
| Translations. Copyright © 2007, WizCom Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more |
Search for answers directly from your browser with the FREE Answers.com Toolbar!
Click here to download now. 
Get Answers your way! Check out all our free tools and products.
Mentioned In:
Related Topics
