Sociobiology

Sociobiology in Betta
Splendens
By: Darren Ledermann M.
Andrés Mori A.
11° 1999
Classifying Sociobiology
Konner: “A person is only a gene's way of
making another gene”
Broad Sociobiology
 Narrow Sociobiology
 Pop Sociobiology

Broad Sociobiology
It mainly refers to the study of animals and
humans, providing answers to general
questions concerning the mechanisms,
development, function, and the evolution of
all social behavior. Although this branch
does not refer to a specific topic within
sociobiology, it is believed that it is from
this branch that both Narrow and Pop
sociobiologies are born from.
Narrow Sociobiology
It bases it’s ideas on evolutionary
theories to explain specific behaviors in
both humans and animals. Within this
field we can find the following theories
which give supporting ideas:
1 .“Descent with Modification” (Darwin), which
states that only the fittest of species on earth will
continue to give birth to new generations and
“descend”. This is the basis for stating “natural
selection”, separating those species that will
survive from those that won’t.
2. “Inclusive Fitness” (Hamilton), which states
that animals will help those who share genes
3. “Game Theory” (Maynard Smith) , which is
based on the “I give you something, maybe
tomorrow I’ll be likely to get something” principle
and
4. “Optimization Theory (Triver) , which bases its
foundations on the trial-and-error principle: if the
best answer for a problem can’t be acquired
directly, an animal will continue to look for
possible answers, finally reaching the best one.
Pop Sociobiology
Is an hypothetical approach which tries to
confirm evolutionary explanations to claims
about how they relate to human nature. Pop
sociobiology also deals with evolution of items
of human behavior and is based on a principle
called Wilson’s ladder. This principle is the
basic argument of pop sociobiologists, from
which all other hypothesis on sociobiology
start, this argument consists of six levels,
these are:
1.IF a behavior maximizes fitness, THEN the behavior
will exist in virtually all members of a group.
2.IF a behavior exists in virtually all members of a
group, THEN the behavior came about by natural
selection.
3.IF a behavior came about by natural selection, THEN
there were once individual differences in the group's
genetic makeup.
4.IF there were once individual differences in the
group's genetic makeup, THEN there are differences in
the genetic makeup of the present group from its
prehistoric ancestors. 5.IF there are differences in the
genetic makeup of the present group from its
prehistoric ancestors, THEN the genetically adaptive
behavior will be difficult to modify by social
engineering.
6.THEREFORE, IF a behavior maximizes fitness, THEN
the genetically adaptive behavior will be difficult to
modify by social engineering
One of the most known detractors of this argument is P.
Kitcher. In his critique against pop sociobiology he states
different reason that explain why Wilson`s ladder is not a
solid argument for sociobiologists to rely on.
Level 1: IF a behavior maximizes fitness, THEN the
behavior will exist in virtually all members of a group.
Pop sociobiology offers explanations of ecstasy at football
games, forbearance in combat, and dominance displays
in men, all in terms of maximizing fitness. However, the
application of evolutionary principles may be overly hasty
and unrigorous, not only when applied to humans, but
even when applied to non-human animals. For example,
one author (Orians, 1969) predicts that, in order to
maximize fitness, virtually all swans, geese, and ducks
should be polygamous. They are not. Therefore, the
author introduces a new variable, high-latitude, and says
that monogamy occurs only in high-latitude species. This
conventionalist stratagem comprises a theoretically
degenerating problemshift (Lakatos, 1970).
Level 2: IF a behavior exists in virtually all
members of a group, THEN the behavior came
about by natural selection.
Level 2 is essentially reductionistic, and thus all
the criticisms of reductionism under the
adaptationist program apply to level 2. One
reductionist argument is that appeals to social
engineering and history invoke illegitimate
entities. However, the counterargument is that
fitness maximizing behavior may become
prevalent
in
a
group
through
cultural
transmission, without any changes in the gene
pool (Kitcher, 1987).
Level 4: IF there were once individual differences in
the group's genetic makeup, THEN there are
differences in the genetic makeup of the present
group from its prehistoric ancestors.
Evolution by natural selection destroys the genetic
variance on which it feeds. Arguments about the
evolution of present-day behavioral traits require
information about genetic variation in the past.
Regarding the heritability of behavioral dispositions
(e.g., entrepreneurship), sociobiologists can play a
game of "heads I win, tails you lose." If there is no
genetic variation, then sociobiologists can claim that
all variation was weeded out by selection for the
trait.
If
there
is
genetic
variation,
then
sociobiologists can claim that that is evidence that
the trait is heritable (Lewontin, 1979).
Level 5: IF there are differences in the genetic makeup of the
present group from its prehistoric ancestors, THEN the
genetically adaptive behavior will be difficult to modify by social
engineering.
The straightforward problem with level 5 is that even if we
know that genes plus environment-1 produce a behavior, we
don't know that genes plus environment-2 produce the same
behavior. There are at least two possible responses to this
problem. First, some human behavioral dispositions may
predate the evolution of humans' prodigious cognitive abilities;
therefore, those dispositions cannot be changed using those
abilities. The rejoinder to this response is that special
environmental sensitivity would seem, on the surface, to be a
selective advantage (Kitcher, 1987).
Second, certain human behavioral phenotypes may remain
constant under diverse conditions (behavioral universals). The
rejoinders to this response are two: (1) the previous rejoinder
also applies in this case; (2) we must recognize the role of
society in human development (Kitcher, 1987).
Another example that proved Kitcher`s
point is one of Wilson`s examples for
sociobiology. His treatment of
homosexuality claims that a propensity to
have some homosexual offspring would
boost one's inclusive fitness. To this,
Kitcher argued the fact that here is no
reason to believe in these alleged
advantages, or that there is one category
of homosexual behavior, as Wilson states.
Experiment Materials
2 Betta Splendens fish
 10 modeling clay-made false fish
 10 modeling clay-made figures
 Separate containers for isolating the
fish
 1 other container for fighting purposes

Experimental Procedures
Training phase: 3 weeks, during which
the modeled figures must be shown to
the fish.
 Fighting phase: both fish are placed
together in a single container.

Experiment: Results and
Conclusions
The two specimens were differentiated as “Sandy” and
“Papo”. The first one underwent a series of visual
stimuli which were meant to increase its
aggressiveness, in an attempt to artificially create an
hyperagressive behavior in the fish, as described
before. The second one, Papo, was kept in a typical
home aquarium habitat, where it lived under regular
conditions, maintaining its natural expectable behavior.
During the last stage of the experiment, which was
limited to two weeks instead of the originally planned
three-week period, the two fish, which had been kept
in different tanks for several purposes, such as keeping
them isolated one form the other and being able to
imprint certain behaviors in one of them only (Sandy),
where placed together in the same tank as planned.
Under regular circumstances both fish would normally start
a fight for territory, with unpredictable results on which fish
will eventually win the fight. Under this artificial
circumstances we observed that Sandy engaged a furious
thrust against Papo, which led to the expectable riot
between both fish. As the fight took place, Sandy gained an
unrecoverable advantage over its opponent, leading at the
end of the fight to the death of Papo. During the fight we
could see that Sandy’s main target on Papo’s body was its
fins. On the other hand an involuntary experiment took
place while we interacted with the fish. An unknown cat
came into one of our homes, awakening the natural instinct
of a dog to chase and try to eat the cat. After some time
the chase continued, but surprisingly every time the dog
had a clear chance to bite the cat it just pushed it aside
with the nose. This natural experience proves the
counterpart of our experiment: by posing an animal a
continuous stimulus, the animal becomes calm and, say,
familiar, to it, becoming calm instead of aggressive towards
it.
These observations that were recorded during the
lapse of the fight allow us to infer that behavior can
be directed (or “imprinted”) in a certain way in
animals. What can make the difference in how an
animal responds to a certain external stimulus resides
mainly in the way these stimulus are shown to the
animal in question as well as the level of evolution the
animal has achieved, leading a same stimulus to have
several different responses towards it, such as
aggression or calmness. In this way we come to the
following hypothesis:
“Truth in science can be defined as the working
hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next
better one”. (Lorenz, "Quote Disk 1,2,3," by DBUG,
1991.)
References
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific
research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism
and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91195). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Orians, G. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and
mammals. In T. luttonBrock & P. Harvey (Eds.), Readings in
sociobiology. Freeman.
Kitcher, P. (1987). Précis of Vaulting ambition: Sociobiology and the
quest for human nature. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 61-100.
Lewontin, R. C. (1979). Sociobiology as an adaptationist program.
Behavioral Science, 24,
5-14.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1996). Violence against step-children.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 77-81.