The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin [Paperback]

This book is largely about what psychologist Keith Stanovich sees as the disconnect in the postmodern world between "maximizing genetic fitness and maximizing the satisfaction of human desires." (p. xiii) On the one hand we have the "replicators," the genes that blindly seek only their replication. On the other hand we have the vehicle (the phenotype), i.e., "us," which carries the genes, which Stanovich believes should seek its own happiness. He sees our brain as composed of two overlapping, but sometimes divergent, systems. One, the more primitive, he calls "The Autonomous Set of Systems" (TASS) and the other he calls an "analytic system." He calls this having "two minds in one brain."

The autonomous system is held on a "short leash" by the genes while the analytic system is on a longer leash; that is, TASS reacts to events in the environment almost automatically in close concert with the dictates of the replicators while the analytic system is more removed from innate drives and can analyze situations rationally and can act in terms of what is good for the vehicle rather than what promotes the replication of the genes. Note that these systems usually are in agreement and react to the environment in the same way. Threats to the well-being of the vehicle from predators and other dangers, signal the same avoidance behavior. However, sometimes there is a conflict. The example that Stanovich uses is TASS's need to flirt with the boss's wife, which might increase the replication of the genes, while the analytic system realizes that such behavior probably goes against the best interests of the vehicle (possible loss of job, etc.). Following the counsel of the rational analytic system instead of the urgings of TASS is what Stanovich calls "maximizing goal satisfaction at the level of the whole organism." (p. 64)

The title of the book comes from Richard Dawkins (and indeed this book is written in partial reaction to and in concert with Dawkins's ideas) who called organisms "survival machines" and "gigantic lumbering robots" in his famous opus, The Selfish Gene (1976). Stanovich wants to free us from the dictates of those selfish genes and so has constructed a "robot's rebellion." He believes we can use our rationality (our analytic system) to override the sometimes self-destructive inclinations of the more primitive set of brain systems. Stanovich is preeminently a rationalist and believes that right thought leading to right behavior will lead to a more fulfilling and happier life for the "robots." We need to be on the long leash from the genes, not the short leash, is his idea.

A strong point that Stanovich makes very well is that in the information societies of the modern world many of the talents that served us well in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptiveness in the Pleistocene are "worthless" when (e.g.) trying to use "an international ATM machine with which you are unfamiliar" or when "arguing with your HMO about a disallowed medical procedure." (p. 124) He argues strongly that corporations and governments, through their advertizing and propaganda, have become very good at exploiting blind spots in our more primitive brain systems and getting us to do what is good for them and not necessarily good for us. I think this is correct, and that those of us who can see how the players in the modern economy are trying to use us for their benefit will avoid most of the more obvious traps and thereby increase our standard of living and presumably our chances for happiness.

Stanovich devotes a chapter to criticizing evolutionary psychologists for failing "to develop the most important implication of potential mismatches between the cognitive requirements of the EEA and those of the modern world," as he carefully phrases it on page 131. Nonetheless the psychology presented here is mainly a synthesis of cognitive psychology, brain science and evolutionary psychology and as such represents the latest in our attempt to understand ourselves.

He also devotes a chapter to the effects that another kind of replicator, the meme, has on our lives. I don't have the space to go into his ideas about memes and their implications, but I want to say that from my point of view the word "meme" is an approximate neologism for the word "idea." However, I think that it is a useful coinage and, like Stanovich's mind dualism, facilitates a new way of looking at and talking about how our brains work.

While I think this is an extremely interesting book that goes a long way toward showing us the sort of thinking that characterizes postmodern psychology, I must point out that Stanovich's mind dualism is a construct that, while based on his interpretation of recent findings, is nonetheless just that: a construct that will be refined as time goes by and eventually overturned for a new construct. As always in science we are increasing our understanding and expanding our knowledge as we move toward a final understanding that will most likely always lie tantalizingly in the distance.

Keith Stanovich is an accomplished behavioral scientist (psychologist) who applies all his scientific knowledge to answer a single question. We humans are the genetic product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, during most of which we lived as menial hunter-gatherers with a 35 year life expectancy. Given this genetic heritage, Stanovich asks, is there any way we can free ourselves from being the captives of our genetic pre-history?

The setting for this analysis is Richard Dawkins' argument in The Selfish Gene that we humans are "giant lumbering robots" who serve only as transient containers for our genes, who are the truly eternal replicators.

Stanovich makes the following arguments. First, there are two decision processes in the human brain. The first is the Autonomous Set of Systems (TASS) which we share with nonhuman animals, is a complete product of our evolutionary history, and only very imperfectly serves our contemporary interests. For instance, the TASS may tell us to overeat, have unsafe sex, or enjoy other forms of immediate gratification. However, there is a second decision center, which Stanovich calls 'analytical' that can override the TASS. This sounds like Freud's Id and Ego, which is one of Freud's unsullied contributions to human understanding. There is much evidence in favor of the TASS/analytical distinction.

Stanovich is to be praised for NEVER descending into the philosopher's morass, in which the question would be posed as one of 'free will.' I do not know if there is free will, but I do know the scientific evidence on which Stanovich's case is built.

The author's second thesis is that the same sociobiology that gave us selfish genes also seriously downgrades the importance of CULTURE in understanding human evolution and dynamics. Boy, is this ever true! His case is built up meticulously from a good knowledge of the contemporary research literature in the area, and is quite persuasive.

Stanovich's point is that the analytic brain can alter culture so as to overcome the biases of the TASS system, allowing humans to realize truly human and emancipatory goals. For instance, even though we all make elementary error in statistical decision-making (the brilliant work of Kahneman, Tversky, et al. shows this), experts can avoid the errors and can instruct others to do so as well.

But now comes Stanovich's third point: we cannot necessarily control culture so that it becomes an instrument of emancipation. According to memetic theory, we are as controlled by our memes (little nodules of culture) as we are by are genes. Stanovich does not manage to solve this problem, and suggests that we all be critically aware of the possibility that we adopt cultural practices that serve only to harm and constrain us. His list of rules for evaluation memes is quite useful and plausible.

I think the answer to Stanovich's problem is that the whole notion of memetics is rubbish. His defense of the notion in the book is uncharacteristically weak, to the point of being pathetic. For instance, he asserts that memetics itself is a meme complex, so if many people accept memetics and memetics is wrong, the memetics must be right! In fact, memetics posits behavior with no evolutionary justification. This is: we accept memes because they force themselves upon us. But, a creature who behaved in this way would be evolutionarily eclipsed by another who did not succumb.

The correct treatment of culture is that it is an epigenetic form of information transfer, and humans evolved to use it to enhance their fitness. The fact that sometimes we adopt harmful memes no more contradicts this than the fact that there are deleterious genetic mutation refutes Darwinism. This analysis is well developed in the research area of gene-culture coevolution, which I urge Stanovich to become (more) familiar with. It will open up vistas for him in pursuing his emancipatory project.

Stanovich introduces the reader to the idea that humans are merely the hosts for two replicators -- genes and memes -- and that these replicators don't care for the interests of their vehicles (us). However, Stanovich also thinks we have reached a point in evolution where we can "rebel" against the interests of these replicators and pursue our own interests.

Much of Stanovich's discussion rides on his concept of "thin" versus "broad" rationality, i.e. simple "wanton" utility maximization vs. utility maximization according to a reflectively acquired value system.

Stanovich can be dramatic at times, constantly repeating his concern that the truths he is revealing will shatter our world-view and depress us. I was not depressed by any of the truths Stanovich revealed to me, and I could have done without the drama, but that may be because I started reading the book already believing in Darwinism, and not clinging to a smug sense of superiourity at being part of the only species on the planet which possesses consciousness.

The book probably could have been about half as long. I appreciate that Stanovich includes many counter-arguments, illustrations, and study-data, but he unnecessarily repeats many of his points several times. By cutting out these redundancies and the drama previously mentioned, the book could have been shortened.

While not ground-breaking to people who are well-read in the relevant fields, this book is a good overview of some of the fundamental ethical concerns that confront humanity in the age of Darwin.