how long do we have to put up with sociobiology/evolutionary psych/whatever the hell they're calling this fake science now? i guess it's just idiotic enough to catch on with the masses

fodor had a good summary in the london review of books:

The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They’re to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors. ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’ ‘We don’t approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.’ ‘We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)’. ‘We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that’s because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.’ ‘We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.’ ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’ ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’ I’m not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it’s unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them ‘just so stories’); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn’t much reason to believe that any of them is true."

Writing "Master and Margarita" during the Stalin purges knowing that the novel could never be published during whatever lifetime he had left between his fatal kidney disease and his place on Stalin's hit list.

There has to be something crucial about fiction because why else would a writer face certain doom by starting a novel?

That's not how the traditional "hierarchy of needs" is supposed to work.

It appears that for many people, fiction is a need that can rank even higher than basic personal safety.

why, everyone knows humans only engage in acts that ensure the perpetuation and survival of the species!

Literary Darwinism, like evolutionary psychology, starts with the conclusion, which is axiomatic: it is all about successful reproduction. So I read Jane Austen looking for mating strategies that work. It is not possible, given the axiom, that I can be doing anything else. And where better to look than Pride and Prejudice? Except that Lizzy TURNS DOWN the guy with 10,000 a year. Emphatically! Refuses him so brutally that a man of pride would never dare ask again. Huh! Well, let me read it from the male point of view. Women's book indeed! Bound to be some hot tips here for us guys. I'm looking for good genes, good health, wide hips--that would be EITHER Lizzy OR her younger sister Lydia, who radiates animal spirits, and didn't I just say "younger"? Wickham, without a farthing, gets the good will of Lizzy early and mixes his genes with Lydia's later on. Darcy, with his huge fortune, gets blown out of the water until a whole series of accidents gives him a barely probable second chance. Not sure what I learned here. That if I cultivate Wickham's glibness I can write my own ticket? Or that I can be as maladroit as Darcy but may still get lucky? On any reading, it appears that commanding a huge fortune is not especially relevant: the only woman Darcy cares about cares nothing for his wealth. A mixed bag in terms of giving me information I can use to aggrandize my chromosomes.

Miller writes that "once culture became the ascendant environmental factor affecting humanity, the game changed fundamentally." That's the whole kit and kaboodle, right there. Game, set, match. Evo is hogwash. As for the forced choice between Literary Darwinism and Postmodern Theory, how about None of the Above? Gosh, that was easy.

Writing a novel is like jumping off of a diving board to see whether there's any water in the pool.

It's an activity that could easily get you eaten by a predator or leave you starving to death in the bushes.

Why do people do this?

Why?

There has to be SOME survival advantage to make up for all the many survival disadvantages of advanced fictional storytelling.

That's why it's important to point out that, whatever you've heard about "selfish genes," the secret to humanity's success lies in Hobbesian competition rather than in individuals' capacity to cooperate, and even to act altruistically. While there are short-term benefits to individuals who behave selfishly -- say, by stealing or hoarding food -- the long-term benefits of sharing usually outweigh the quick payoff, provided that everybody else in your group also participates fairly. Human beings are what biologists call "hypersocial," more social by far than any other animal, and the major product of our deep investment in sociality is our culture....

The second sentence contradicts the first. Is Hobbesian competition, or hypersocial, altruistic cooperation the key to humanity's success? Laura, I suspect you either reversed the arguments (Freudian slip?) and intended something like:

the secret to humanity's success lies in cooperation rather than Hobbesian competition

or that you meant to distance yourself from the first view, as:

whatever you've heard about "selfish genes," -- that the secret to humanity's success lies in Hobbesian competition rather than in individuals' capacity to cooperate -- the long-term benefits of sharing usually outweigh the quick payoff....