The author, Glenn Geher, with Gordon Gallup; Source: Nate Pipitone

It hurts me to write that my dear friend (and dear friend to many), Dr. Gordon Gallup, has passed away. Gordon’s influence on the field of evolutionary behavioral science has been both multi-faceted and profound. Gordon was gentle, kind, caring, brilliant, and wildly creative. He had a beautiful mind and soul. And he will be deeply missed by so many of us.

To say that Gordon Gallup, world-renowned behavioral scientist who was stationed at SUNY Albany for most of his career, had an enormous impact would truly be to understate the case. At the proximate level, Gordon was known as a person who would give the shirt off his back for those whom he cared about. He had a reputation as a family man–as a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. And everyone who was fortunate to call him a friend knew him to be a friend in the most genuine sense. In spite of having an extraordinary workload–at all times–he would always pause to talk with you–he would always take time to help you advance your ideas–he would always do what he could to help you with pretty much anything.

As a professor, he took a uniquely caring, other-oriented approach to his work. Unlike so many other elite researchers, he obviously and truly cared about teaching and about his students. He cared about his many graduate students over the years–a group of bright scholars who now hold academic positions around. Each of these alumni of his lights up upon hearing or speaking his name. The number of alumni of Gordon’s who describe his influence as life-changing is like nothing I’ve ever seen. Gordon actually cared about the people who were fortunate to work with him. He stands as the greatest academic mentor I’ve ever known. And as a scholar, he was world-class. In spite of having a deeply down-to-earth way about him, Gordon was actually as impactful of a researcher/scholar as anyone. His work on a broad array of topics (the fight or flight response in various vertebrates; self-awareness in non-human primates; learned taste aversion across species; the evolutionary psychology of human mating and relationships; biochemical and morphological facets of human mating and relationships; behavioral features of human intimate relationships; handgrip strength as a core feature of primate life; and much more). Gordon, with a background in primatology and comparative psychology / animal behavior, had a unique capacity to use evolutionary principles to shed new light on so many facets of the living world. It is no wonder that he was asked at one point to serve as the keynote speaker for the American Psychological Association–one of the greatest honors that can be bestowed upon someone in the field of psychological science.

When I started teaching at SUNY New Paltz, an hour down the road from Albany, I was eager to advance my teaching and research in the field of evolutionary psychology. People from all different places started to tell me that I must get to know Gordon Gallup of Albany. Sure, I’d heard of this legendary scholar, but it was hard for me then to truly understand why so many people saw my meeting with him as such an imperative.

That is, until I actually met him–a game-changing moment in my career–and in my life.

Before meeting Gordon in person, I was in email communication with him about the idea of forming a regional intellectual society dedicated to advancing the field of evolutionary psychology. We would hold annual conferences in the Northeast. Our first conference was set for April of 2007–and Gordon had graciously agreed to serve as a keynote speaker. With this fact alone, there was reason for optimism about the incipient NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society (NEEPS).

When Gordon showed up at the conference on my home campus of SUNY New Paltz, I immediately saw why Gordon’s reputation so emphatically preceded him. He was wearing worn-out jeans, a black t-shirt, and a well-worn flannel. He looked like he had just come back from the fields (so it wasn’t the least bit surprising when I learned later that he lived on a working cattle farm). He had the most genuine and kind smile and demeanor. And he spoke in a way that was uniquely engaging and welcoming. And he literally had a twinkle in his eyes at all times.

Yes, I thought, this guy is so the real deal–just like dozens of people had told me. Gordon was that rare kind of person who you just got to know almost immediately. Gordon attended the first NEEPS conference in its entirety. He brought about a dozen undergraduate and graduate students to the conference, pretty much ensuring that attendance for the first NEEPS conference would be solid (an essential ingredient for launching an intellectual society). He interacted with other attendees as if he was at a family reunion. He was just so kind and generous with his time. And I think what stood out most to me was that he had an authentically egalitarian way of interacting with others. He would spend just as much time and interest in talking with a freshman who was halfway through an initial introductory psychology course as he would talking to a highly published peer from an ivy league university. Gordon was a true humanist–he really cared about the people who were fortunate to get to know him–even if momentarily.

Suffice it to say, my admiration for Gordon was immediate. For years, he and I would communicate and stay in touch. We would visit one another’s campuses regularly–usually bringing students to create an informal Albany / New Paltz evolutionary psychology community. Gordon contributed some of the most important chapters to multiple books that I co-edited. Each time he visited New Paltz was like a visit from a cherished family member. And hearing him talk about his research and ideas was always delightful, provocative, and engaging. No one fell asleep during a lecture by Gordon Gallup. No one.

Everyone who knew Gordon well could drop multiple anecdotes–anecdotes that often told stories of, among other things, insightful moments of learning. Gordon was a masterful teacher and thinker. And listening to him dissect his ideas was like seeing the world illuminated for the first time. I will never forget one occasion when he was giving a lecture to students and faculty on my campus. He was talking about his research on the topic of handgrip strength. At some point, he paused for questions. I raised my hand and asked him this: Gordon, can you please briefly summarize why handgrip strength is so important from an evolutionary perspective in the first place? As was usually the case when Gordon answered questions of this variety, his answer was delivered with lightning speed and razor-sharp clarity: We need to keep in mind that for millions of generations in the evolutionary history of our lineage, our ancestors were arboreal–tree-dwelling. And if you live primarily in the treetops–and you fail to grab a branch on a single occasion, it’s lights out. That was all I needed to hear to deeply understand the point. I tell this anecdote to students every semester since.

My career was hugely and positively influenced by the uniquely brilliant mind and uniquely generous nature of Dr. Gordon G. Gallup, Jr. But more importantly, I learned from Gordon what it means to be a good man. And I know that countless others feel exactly the same. Gordon’s influence on our world, at so many levels, has been both positive and, to use one of Gordon’s favorite words, ubiquitous.

Rest in peace, Gordon. Thanks for the gift of NEEPS. Thanks for all you did to make this world a better place. You will always be loved.

__________________

Variants of this tribute are cross-posted with other platforms. I own the copyright to the content.

Subscribe now

Since teaching my first-ever college course at the University of New Hampshire in 1994, I’ve taught hundreds of sections of college classes—across seven different institutions of higher learning.

Anyone who knows me and who knows my passion for working with and building up members of the next generation of leaders likely knows that I care deeply about teaching. While I may have a relatively strong record in the areas of research and service, it is, without question, the case that teaching is—and has always been—at the top of my priority list when it comes to being a university professor.

While I have encountered many challenges associated with college teaching over the years (fallout from September 11 while teaching in New York, the COVID pandemic, the introduction of Wikipedia to the world stage, cell phones in the classrooms, grade inflation, etc.), I can confidently say that generative AI stands as, by far and away, the largest hurdle I have ever seen when it comes to affecting the teaching and learning process.

For the past 2-4 years or so, the process of teaching college students has been deeply affected by generative AI—particularly when it comes to the teaching of writing, an element of the job that I have always held as sacred.

After the advent of generative AI, everything changed. No matter how hard I work to develop a rapport with my students, generative AI has, without question, affected my ability to teach about the art and science of academic writing in the behavioral sciences.

For decades, I taught writing-intensive courses that included extensive feedback from me on students’ written work. I worked relentlessly to help each student better articulate complex ideas and to help them to write as they speak—in a voice that focuses on communicating effectively to another person—with a strong devaluation of writing so that you “sound smart.” As I’ve told many of my students over the years:

You got into a great college—that means that you’re smart—you don’t have to demonstrate that point to anyone. Writing is simply about getting someone else to understand something that they may not know or to hear your perspective on something such that it makes sense to them. Trying to appear like some kind of genius has no business in the sphere of writing. That is not the point. Write as you speak and speak as you write.

Student Response to Generative AI

Humans, like all organisms, evolved to expend as little energy as possible—and to save up energy for when it is essential to do so to achieve critical evolutionary goals such as survival. This is why, in places like Upstate New York, you may often see squirrels who scurry feverishly across your yard to avoid a dog—or to snag a freshly dropped acorn. But you never see a wild squirrel intentionally running laps across your front yard to “stay in shape.” That’s not how nature works.

And this is why, in the age of processed food and so many modern luxuries (that we often take for granted, such as the sofa that I sit upon as I type right now), people so-often take the easy way out. Pretty much, all organisms evolved to take the easy way out—doing so provided organisms an evolutionary advantage over others across billions of years of life on earth.

Understanding these points, when I saw how obviously and readily students came to lean on generative AI to (effectively) write college papers for them, I have to say that I was not all that surprised. But, perhaps more so, I will say that I was annoyed! Carefully reading a 20-page research paper might take about 2-3 hours in some cases. Taking my time to do that for a paper that literally took a student one minute to write just doesn’t sit well with me. Especially in cases in which students have no clear extrinsic reason to even read my feedback.

In spite of having a strongly worded “AI-Free” policy, I started to see all kinds of red flags in student work. This fact was especially true in my fully online courses. Such red flags included the following:

1. In one course, where students were tasked with describing research on a well-documented behavioral adaptation, multiple students—in multiple sections—handed in papers on sweating as a behavioral adaptation. Prior to the advent of generative AI, I had never heard of sweating as a behavioral adaptation that is of interest to students. Sweating is not a behavior. What is going on?!?!

2. In that same course, on multiple occasions, several students handed in papers with identical sub-headings. IDENTICAL. These sub-headings included such idiosyncratic titles as “Methods: A Quantitative and Qualitative Approach.” Word for word. One student after the other after the other. Prior to the existence of generative AI, I never saw that particular sub-heading. AT ALL.

3. The use of verbiage that sounded kind of on-task, but that, after further scrutiny, kind of said nothing at all.

4. AI-generated hallucinations, such as full APA-style references of (upon my own further research) fully fictitious pieces of “scholarly literature.”

5. And, unfortunately, more. Like I’ve said, it’s kind of a nightmare.

Subscribe now

An Alternative Approach to Teaching in the Age of AI

If you know me well, in addition to knowing that I care deeply about the teaching and learning process, you may also know that I am no quitter! Several months back, I requested to teach a section of one of my most treasured courses, Evolutionary Psychology, for this particular summer (2026).

As you may have anticipated, I made some major changes to the nature of the course. My prior online versions of this course were based almost fully on student writing samples. Students would provide discussion posts regarding each chapter in the textbook. And they would create a culminating “creative” project that could be produced in any medium they chose (such as by writing a fictional piece that explicated a number of concepts from the course).

In the age of generative AI, these assignments simply were not working. As one of my colleagues recently quipped, I was suddenly thrust into the role of police officer. I came to question, without wanting to do so, each and every writing sample as to whether it was produced fully or partially by generative AI.

With all respect to the brave individuals across societies who take on formal roles as police officers, that is not what I personally signed up for in choosing my career path. Regardless, I started to feel as if policing for the use of AI had become a significant part of my job.

This was, of course, problematic for a number of reasons—mostly due to the fact that it had the obvious capacity to reduce student learning—which is kind of the point of education.

This time around, I changed things dramatically. In the current version of my course, not a single bit of writing is required. Here are the changes that I implemented—changes that, based on student feedback (including formal student feedback via the university teaching evaluation process), actually worked well.

1. The new version of my course is not fully asynchronous. In other words, on some occasions (four 45-minute slots across four weeks, to be specific), students are “required” to meet with me and the other students in the class—virtually. These brief meetings are not that strongly connected with grading. In fact, attendance at each meeting counts toward 1% of each student’s final grade. That all said, this past term, most students attended each-and-every in-person (virtual) class meeting—meetings that were dedicated to both clarifying content for students as well as humanizing all relevant parties (them and me). Via this process, I got to know the students as actual humans. And vice versa.

2. Not a single written piece of work is required. In the past, I had students produce all assignments via writing. In an asynchronous online class, this had become pretty standard over the years pretty broadly. Then the advent of generative AI changed everything. My solution? Fight technology with technology! In my current version of the course, each and every assignment is to be done as a video clip—with students speaking their ideas instead of writing them. Did I have a student or two this past term who was clearly reading some script that had been generated by AI? Sure. I politely called them out on the side. And they didn’t do it again. Having students speak (instead of “write”) their commentaries reflecting their understanding of the course content worked swimmingly. The students appeared, in their presentations of the ideas, as fully human. Requiring them to speak their ideas required a conversational, fluent understanding—which was nothing short of refreshing on my end. These intellectual products were created by humans who cared about communicating with other humans—for the purpose of shared understanding of often-abstract, technical concepts. Now that’s what I’m talking about!

3. Interview with an Actual Human about Course Content. The final, capstone assignment for the course was totally changed from prior offerings of the course. For the current version of the course, all students were required to have some layperson in their life (mom, dad, grandma, sister, friend, co-worker, etc.) interview them about five discrete concepts from the course. Again using video-based technology, each student was required to not only master five critical concepts in the course, but they were required to effectively (in front of an audience) communicate these concepts, using examples and to, perhaps, elaborate on their explanations, with a goal of getting a layperson in their life to understand what the concept is all about. In other words, they were required to demonstrate genuine understanding of core ideas from the course.

Bottom Line (and the Future)

With technology advancing as quickly as it is, predicting the future is more difficult than ever these days. And when it comes to generative AI, we are talking about a genie that has skyrocketed out of the bottle—and who is capable of hitting the hyperspace button ad infinitum.

So when it comes to generative AI and education, I have learned that any “solution” that works today may well become obsolete a year from now. This said, based on my extensive experience teaching online courses at the college level (I’ve done so since the 1990s), I will tell you that (a) including a required synchronous—human-facing—component of the course (even if it counts for less than 5% of the final grade) and (b) having student content be delivered via conversational speech delivered by video clips (and not writing), seem to help address many of the problems that generative AI has foisted upon the landscape of higher education in the past few years.

Is this approach the end-all be-all? Hey, I’m 56. I wasn’t born yesterday. Is AI technology going to only advance in the coming years? Is it possible that in a matter of years, or even months, any college student will be able to create a virtual avatar of themselves who can both (a) effectively complete the aforementioned assignments and (b) do so in a way that cannot be detected? To that, I have to say this: Yeah, probably. And will a significant proportion of students lean on this technology to get through college? Highly likely, I am afraid to say.

The impact of generative AI on learning in general, and on higher education specifically, is nothing short of profound. And based on my particular experience, this effect is considerably more bad than good when it comes to students actually learning content and skills that can help them thrive in the future.

For me, the approach described above has demonstrated to be much more successful—in terms of facilitating student learning during the age of generative AI—than I had expected.

And by the way, I don’t think students are intentionally and maliciously trying to cut corners with generative AI. My students are the lifeblood of my work. And this fact has been true since 1994. I care about them and their futures deeply.

Students are humans. And humans are, by nature, shaped by biological forces to save time and energy as best they can in all spheres of life. And using generative AI to produce assignments is a byproduct of this clearly evolved part of who we are.

We can only do what we can do.

How about we work together to help build the best future for not only us, but for those who will follow us—and for those who will lead into our shared future.

Subscribe now

Source: Brett Jordan / Pexels

Subscribe now

Have you ever had the fullest intention to forgive someone, yet found yourself having a difficult time actually doing it? For instance, if you caught a close family member in some lie related to any number of family matters, your mind may well say “it’s not a big deal, I’m going to just forgive this person and move on—this is family, after all,” while something else inside you feels like forgiveness is just wrong. Or imagine if you are in long-term marriage and you come to find out that your partner has been stepping out of the relationship for years. As someone who values family deeply, you may consciously want to forgive your partner for the transgression, but your heart, which was broken along the way, simply might not let you.

As we advance in life, scenarios that seem to demand forgiveness of others—or, perhaps more accurately, consideration of forgiveness of others—stand as critical moments in each of our life stories.

As the aforementioned examples show, forgiveness is often a deeply painful and difficult process. An evolutionary approach to forgiveness can help us to understand why this is the case (De Jesus et al., 2021).

An Evolutionary Perspective on Forgiveness

To understand our current psychology, it is often helpful to look to our ancestral past and to the conditions that were prevalent and recurrent during the bulk of human evolutionary history (see Geher & Wedberg, 2022). While reconstructing our deep evolutionary past requires some level of speculation, based on data from archaeologists, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists, and scholars in other fields, we have a strong sense of certain features of ancestral human conditions that bear strongly on the nature of our minds today.

Up until the advent of agriculture, about 10,000 years ago (see Dunbar, 1992), all humans lived in nomadic groups. Such groups, as is true of modern nomadic groups around the world, had certain features that we can be reasonably sure of. They were, for practical reasons, capped in terms of population (at approximately 150 individuals; Dunbar, 1992). People were surrounded by both kin (family members) and individuals with whom people had long-standing relationships. In short, in an ancestral nomadic group, you were surrounded by the same people for pretty much your whole life. Encounters with strangers were rare.

Under these kinds of conditions, there was very strong pressure to stay connected with others in one’s group. Being estranged from, or on the outs with, several others in one’s nomadic clan would have been more than a little problematic. Being ostracized from one’s clan would have necessarily had dramatic implications for one’s capacity to survive and reproduce.

So we evolved psychological adaptations that motivated us to stay connected with others. Trivers (1985) referred to a subset of these psychological adaptations as moral or social-emotional emotions. Such emotions, including such experiences as guilt, shame, embarrassment, pride, and forgiveness, seem to have evolved to help people to stay healthily connected with others and, ultimately, with one’s broader clan or group, by motivating actions that cultivate such outcomes. For instance, guilt leads to apologetic behavior which may help smooth out rifts in relationships between individuals.

From this framework, we can think of forgiveness in functional terms. The largely emotional process of forgiveness seems to ultimately serve the purpose of keeping people connected in small social communities—particularly after some sort of transgression has taken place.

Subscribe now

Why Forgiveness Can Be So Difficult

Research in the behavioral sciences has often documented a critical distinction between our conscious, often-cognitive processing versus the ways that we handle emotional experiences (see Montgomery, 2010). In short, there truly is a split between our minds versus our hearts (to use a common model for talking about this topic).

Our hearts, or our emotion systems, evolved to help motivate adaptive behaviors (see Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009). Stimuli that make us happy tend to be stimuli that cultivate survival or reproductive success (such as being presented with a tasty meal or dating someone who feels like the one). Stimuli that make us scared are often stimuli that may actually threaten survival or reproductive success (such as some of the most commonly documented fears, including fear of snakes, spiders, and heights).

Complex social emotional processes, such as forgiveness, also seem to have evolutionary functions. If you forgive someone after some transgression, you may end up maintaining an important social connection (be it with a friend, family member, co-worker, etc.). This said, the evolutionary benefits of maintaining social connections must be weighed (often unconsciously) against the costs of forgiving someone who has transgressed against you (e.g., making you look foolish in the eyes of others, requiring you to stay connected with someone who has proven to be untrustworthy, etc.).

As an emotional process, forgiveness, thereby, becomes tricky. If people simply always forgave anyone who did them wrong, then people would betray and hurt others even more than is already the case. While our minds may want desperately to forgive someone, our hearts are often on a different page regarding this one. And there are good evolutionary reasons for this fact.

This is why it is so often the case that we find ourselves wanting to forgive someone, in theory (cognitively), but finding ourselves unable to actually forgive that person in our hearts (with our emotion systems). Our emotion systems, which often include processes that slide beneath our own consciousness, often run very separately from our more conscious cognitive systems. One consequence of this critical feature of human psychology is the fact that forgiveness is often a wildly difficult and complex process.

Bottom Line

If you are old enough to read this post, then you likely have experienced at least one scenario in which you have desperately wanted to forgive someone but found yourself unable to forgive that person at a deep emotional level. That is because, from an evolutionary perspective, forgiveness is a complex and largely emotional phenomenon. As a consequence, our cognitive intentions to forgive are often undermined by non-conscious, emotional forces that, perhaps ultimately for our own long-term benefit, push us strongly toward not forgiving.

True forgiveness requires an alignment between our conscious intentions to forgive along with our non-conscious feelings that encourage forgiveness. Only when our minds and hearts align, is true forgiveness possible. Evolution helps us to understand why.

Note: This post is adapted from a post that I wrote for Psychology Today. I own the rights to the content.

Subscribe now

I write to solicit your help (with a promise of interesting information in the future that will result!).

I am currently conducting a research project on the general topic of how lifestyle relates to issues of health and wealth. This study (link here: https://newpaltz.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6SsQpFEw9kmh1Ns) fits within the general work I have been doing on the topic of better informing the positive aspects of the human experience.

At a later point, when I have results prepared, I will provide a follow-up post that elaborates on the purpose of the study along with the general findings.

Please consider taking this brief survey (formal invite is below)—and feel free to disseminate to others (who read English and who are 18 years of age or older).

And thank you!

Genuinely, Glenn

________

Lifestyle and Health Outcomes Study

Hi! Please consider taking this brief survey that is being conducted by Glenn Geher, Director of the New Paltz Evolutionary Psychology Lab. This research focuses on the relationship between lifestyle and health outcomes. All data are completely anonymous and confidential. The entire survey should take about 20 minutes to complete.

Participants must be 18 or older and must be fluent English speakers to participate.

The survey questions address issues such as background (e.g., what kind of area you grew up in), lifestyle (e.g., kinds of foods that you tend to eat), personality, and perceptions of others. The scales used are primarily scales that have been validated in past research in behavioral science studies.

If you are a New Paltz Psychology student and want 1 SONA credit for your participation, please follow this link:
https://newpaltz.sona-systems.com/default.aspx?p_return_experiment_id=614

If you are not New Paltz Psychology student looking for SONA credit, please follow this link: https://newpaltz.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6SsQpFEw9kmh1Ns

Note: This study has been approved by the SUNY New Paltz Human Research Ethics Board.

(Photo credit: Iffany / Pixabay)

Subscribe now

So picture this: Your side-hustle is creating fun social media posts about your cat. Twice a week, you post a funny cat video with some additional content. You’re up to nearly 150,000 subscribers, and you’re having fun with it.

Then it happens. Apparently, without your knowledge, the social media platform that you use changed its “unsubscribe” protocol—making it more difficult for people to unsubscribe. You become aware of this change through an email that comes from someone labeled as “Anonymous.” It reads: Great job making it nearly impossible for people to unsubscribe from your account. You are a greedy son-of-a-gun. Have fun stealing people’s money.

You’re put off by this comment for so many reasons. First, you didn’t know that the social media platform had changed its unsubscribe processes. Further, you would never, personally, make it difficult for someone to unsubscribe from your account. Also, in terms of the comment about “stealing people’s money,” you wish that this anonymous poster knew that you made exactly $59 last year from making over 100 posts and receiving more than 500,000 views. Sigh.

This example speaks to the concept of misunderstanding. Clearly, the annoyed subscriber misunderstood your control over the technical processes of the platform. Further, that person misunderstood your financial gain in the entire endeavor.

Misunderstanding as a Core Human Problem

If you think about it a bit, you probably can name multiple instances of misunderstanding that you have experienced in the past few days. Maybe while you were driving, someone honked at you for not turning right, in fact, you had no intention of turning. Maybe your long-time friend just texted you a gut-wrenching text about how they are sad that you don’t text them much these days—only to find out that the many texts that you have sent were sent, unwittingly, to their old number. And so forth. Misunderstanding is, in many ways, the core of conflict and stress as we navigate life (see Nale, Geher, & Geher, in-process).

Misunderstandings exist between members of married couples, friends, siblings, supervisors and employees, teachers and students, and so on. If I had a nickel for every time someone experienced some kind of misunderstanding each day, I’d retire right this second!

5 Psychological Processes that Contribute to Misunderstanding

When looking closely at misunderstanding, it turns out that there are several psychological processes that foster misunderstanding. Here are four of the most prevalent:

1. Egocentric Bias. By nature, we see the world through our own eyes. This fact is what it is. What I see through my eyes may not be what you see through your eyes. I may see someone arguing with a manager at a restaurant about the check as someone who deserves admiration for standing up for themselves. Meanwhile, you may find the complainer to be despicable. We may end up disagreeing on this issue when we discuss it later. This kind of conflict may easily follow from egocentric bias (Sicoly & Ross, 1977)—the tendency to see the world in a certain way and to assume that others share that perspective. If I saw someone admirably standing up for themself and you saw someone who just wants money off the bill, we’re going to have a misunderstanding.

2. Cognitive Dissonance. Cognitive dissonance (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) is the idea that people are motivated to hold thoughts that are consistent with one another. We don’t like it when we hear something inconsistent with our world view. So picture that you are having a fine conversation with an acquaintance. All is good until this person states that he thinks the Rolling Stones have no musical talent. Little does this person know that you own every Rolling Stones album and have seen them live multiple times. You pride yourself on strong skills in music appreciation and you are put off. It is inconsistent with pretty much everything that you “know” to be true in your own mind. This comment led to a strong state of cognitive dissonance and made you pretty uncomfortable. Meanwhile, this acquaintance had no idea about your affinity for the Stones and had no intention of making you feel uncomfortable. In such a case, your tendency toward feeling uncomfortable when experiencing cognitive dissonance leads to a bit of misunderstanding. You excuse yourself and head to fill up your drink.

3. Emotional versus Cognitive Processing. People also vary in terms of how much they lean toward processing information in a rationale, cognitive manner versus emotionally (see Montgomery, 2010). Picture two family members who vary on this issue. The morning of Thanksgiving, they get a text from Aunt Edna, saying that she would appreciate being picked up at the train station, but that she’d be fine taking a cab. The feeler in the group picks up on the emotional content underlying the message—Aunt Edna, who is in her 80s, clearly wants someone to pick her up. The feeler feels what Aunt Edna is communicating. The feeler asks who is going to pick up Aunt Edna. The non-feeler, on the other hand, seems to hold a totally different perspective. We are busy making dinner—and Aunt Edna said that she’d be willing to take a cab. What’s the problem? Misunderstanding ensues.

   Subscribe now

4. Dispositionist Bias. When we see others act, we tend to be overly likely to blame dispositions for actions (see Ross & Nisbett, 1991). This phenomenon is often called dispositionist bias—and it is a common cause of misunderstanding. Imagine that you’re driving home after a long day. You cannot wait to make it home. Suddenly, someone cuts you off, forcing you to slam on your breaks. The driver seems to be in some huge hurry—a fact that annoys you even more. When you pull up to the next stoplight, you look over to this driver. What you see is an older man with a dog next to him in the passenger seat. The dog looks to be barely conscious—and you realize that the main veterinarian in town is a block ahead. Suddenly, instead of thinking that this driver is some awful jerk, you realize that this person is probably a kind-hearted soul who is doing everything in his power to help his ailing dog. Your gut instinct, to blame the person’s driving on this idea that the person is just some kind of selfish jerk, represents the dispositionist bias. In fact, it turned out that the driver was in a very difficult situation.

5. Different Stages of Educational and/or Cognitive Development. When you seek to understand pretty much anything, the way in which you understand it is partly shaped by your own level of educational development. In Bloom’s famous (1959) taxonomy of educational development, he created a model of understanding that starts with people (often college freshmen) as having a take on the world in which there simply is true or false—and in trying to understand the world, they work that way—trying to figure out if something is true or false. But as people advance and grow in educational and cognitive development, they come to realize that there are often multiple truths corresponding to different perspectives or belief systems. This more advanced, relativistic form of knowing is often the result of experience, education, and growth. If someone with a “true/false” take on the world is talking to someone with a highly relativistic take on things, it only stands to reason that misunderstanding between these individuals could easily emerge.

Bottom Line

Misunderstandings are too common in the world. They create rifts within families, friend groups, states, nations, and beyond. Understanding the psychological processes that underlie the various forms of misunderstanding can help us better appreciate others in our world. Once we get why misunderstandings exist, we can move toward building a world with fewer of them. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather live in a world of understanding.

Subscribe now

References

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 (2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

Montgomery, J. (2010). The Answer Model: A New Path to Healing. TAM Books.

Nale, J., Geher, S., & Geher, G. (in-process). The Book of Understanding.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Sicoly, F., & Ross, M. (1977). Facilitation of ego-biased attributions by means of self-serving observer feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.10.734

*Note: This post is inspired by a book project that I’m working on with my lovely wife, Shannon, and her thoughtful father, Jim: The Book of Understanding.

**Note: This post was adapted from a post I’d published with Psychology Today. I own the rights to this content

(photo credit: hulkiokantabak / Pixabay)

Subscribe now

Recently, I was talking to a friend with a strong physics background. He said that he is very fond of the field of psychology, but expressed concern about the fact that, unlike physics, evolutionary psychology is “a soft science” that does not have any universal laws. Well, we didn’t have time to get into it at the moment—but, in fact, while I actually used to agree with this sentiment, I don’t anymore. Not at all.

My appreciation for the evolutionary perspective in psychology has totally changed this in my mind, as I have dug more deeply into the field over the past 2+ decades.

The basic proposition of evolution is, actually, a universal law and logical truism. Renowned evolutionary biologist George Williams (1966) put it this way: Evolution is nothing more than a “statistical bias in the rate of perpetuation of alternatives.” Evolutionary psychologists take this reasoning and apply it to our understanding of behavior. As such, evolutionary psychologists always think about the processes that we study as following some basic natural laws. Whether evolution is “true” is, thus, not up for grabs. Neither is the fact that human behavior is ultimately rooted in the evolution of life in general.

Here, I demarcate two of the most basic ideas in the field, framed as scientific laws with derivative principles that follow.

2 Basic Laws of Psychology

From the evolutionary perspective, there are, in fact, many laws that underlie human behavior. Two of the most basic are related to “behavioral adaptations” and “evolutionary mismatch” (each of which is, ultimately, derived from the law of natural selection, which simply states that those qualities of organisms that are relatively likely to be selected naturally are more likely to exist in the future compared with alternative qualities). Importantly, again, these are only a subset of the many laws that evolutionary psychologists have documented as underlying human behavioral phenomena.

Law #1: Behavioral adaptations are Darwinian adaptations, and like any Darwinian adaptations, they ultimately serve the function of increasing the probability of survival and/or reproduction.

A behavioral adaptation is any psychological feature that was naturally selected and came to characterize a species because it helped increase the survival and/or reproduction of individuals in that species who displayed that adaptation under ancestral conditions (see Geher, 2014). While it takes a great deal of effort to scientifically document the existence of a behavioral adaptation, with the right data-collection processes, and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, it can be done (see Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004).

Consider the fact that people across the globe find babies’ faces irresistibly cute (see Kringelbach et al., 2016). Well, this is a behavioral adaptation. Ancestral humans who found these faces cute were more likely to pay positive attention to their babies. And this would have led to increases in the probability of those babies successfully surviving and, ultimately, reproducing—passing along this trait (of responding positively to baby faces) into the future.

The broader point is that behavioral adaptations follow a lawful path that follows Darwinian logic. If a behavioral process or pattern can be documented to truly be a Darwinian adaptation, then we know several things about that process or adaptation with law-like confidence: We know that it is the result of an evolutionary process, such as natural selection. We know that it, on average, had the effect of increasing the probability of the survival and/or reproduction of our ancestors. And we know that it exists in some capacity across various human populations (because this is how adaptations run). We know its function, and we can use this knowledge about the adaptation to make all kinds of scientific predictions related to it.

So we can think of the basic idea of a behavioral adaptation as a law of psychology.

And this law, then, leads to various derivative principles that follow. In fact, we can think of the various behavioral adaptations that have been documented by scholars in this field as the derivative principles that follow from this basic law, such as:

• The human emotion system serves to help people communicate with one another (Ekman & Friesen, 1986).

• During the adolescent years, humans show an increase in behaviors that comprise intrasexual competition (Buss, 2003).

• Whether people utilize a “fast” approach to life (reproducing early and often) or a “slow” approach to life (reproducing later and giving more attention to few offspring) is shaped by the degree to which one’s early environment is stable (Figueredo et al. 2008).

This is just a small sample of the principles that have been documented by scholars in this area. (For a more detailed summary, see my book, Evolutionary Psychology 101.) My broader point is that the idea of a behavioral adaptation has all the hallmarks of a scientific law—and several specific adaptations that have been uncovered can be now thought of as principles that can be used to guide future research questions.

And this is exactly how science works.

Law #2: Evolutionary mismatch, which exists when the modern environment of an organism is mismatched from the ancestral environment of that organism, will lead to demonstrable outcomes.

A basic premise of Darwin’s take on evolution is that organisms were shaped by natural selection to have features (both physical and behavioral) that fit with the details of a particular environment. Evolutionary mismatch (Giphart & Van Vugt, 2018) exists when the organism, in some objective kind of way, finds itself in an environment that is mismatched from the ancestral environments that surrounded the evolution of that organism. A simple example would be found if you tried to plant a palm tree in upstate New York. That plant would not survive the winter. That is because the adaptations of that plant are matched to more temperate conditions; its ancestors evolved under temperate environmental conditions.

The idea of evolutionary mismatch is a derivative of the basic law of natural selection. And it acts as a scientific law, based on logical assertions. Further, as is the case with the law of behavioral adaptations, we can think of the basic law of evolutionary mismatch as leading to various specific derivative principles that have been documented, including:

• Modern human taste preferences were adapted for ancestral conditions in which drought was common, and they are mismatched from modern conditions, where many kinds of processed foods are common, and drought is rare (Keefe et al., 2006).

• In modern human environments, people are more able to engage in deindividuated behavior than was true during the bulk of human evolution. And when people are deindividuated, they are more likely to engage in anti-social behaviors (Figueredo et al. 2008).

• Under ancestral conditions, children engaged in free play in mixed-age groups and did not participate in formal educational systems. Modern educational systems are mismatched, in many ways, from such an ancestral environment (Gray, 2011).

Again, this list is the tip of the iceberg. Each of these particular kinds of mismatches has been documented by a variety of sources, and each can now be thought of as a principle in its own right, capable of leading to testable hypotheses to ask new questions and to uncover new information about the nature of who we are.

Bottom Line

Some people still think that psychology is a “soft science” devoid of any “laws” that guide the work in our field. While that may have been true in the past, the marriage of psychology and Darwin’s ideas on evolution has been a true game-changer for the field. The idea of a behavioral adaptation is a law in the scientific sense—based on the logic of natural selection. Similarly, evolutionary mismatch, which has powerfully generated various principles of behavior, can be thought of as a scientific law, similarly rooted in the foundation of natural selection. If you are a scientist, then you know better than to argue with the idea of natural selection. Thanks to the principles of evolution, there are laws that we have documented that underlie human behavior. Thus, the field of psychology does have basic laws.

Importantly, the two laws presented here truly provide but a glimpse into the many laws that underlie human behavior. Future work into articulating the laws of human behavior, armed with the powerful toolkit that Darwin provided us well over a century ago, will go a long way toward advancing behavioral science in the most general sense.

You might be reading this piece and be thinking that it might be good to elaborate on this idea and write a broader, more thorough academic treatise of this subject, spelling out a broader array of evolutionary psychological laws and their derivatives. I would not disagree—and would very much welcome such a project being spearheaded by an inspired student or intellectual colleague. Such a project would make a great journal article and/or perhaps a master’s thesis or dissertation. Or maybe a full book.

Note that the initiative Psychtable.org, designed to spell out the basic evolved psychological adaptations that exist across the human world, was built with a similar mindset and is very worth checking out.

In any case, next time someone tells you that Psychology is a soft science, don’t be afraid to pull the Darwin card.

NOTE: This article is adapted from a post that I published with Psychology Today. I own the copyright to the content.

Subscribe now

References

Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Revised edition). New York: Basic Books.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1986). A new pan-cultural facial expression of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 10, 159-168.

Figueredo , A. J. , Brumbach , B. H. , Jones , D. N. , Sefcek , J. A. , Vasquez , G. , & Jacobs , W. J. ( 2008 ). Ecological constraints on mating tactics. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 337–365). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.

Giphart, R. & Van Vugt, M. (2018). Mismatch. Robinson.

Gray, P. (2011). Free to Learn. New York: Basic Books.

Kringelbach M. L., et al. (2016). On Cuteness: Unlocking the Parental Brain and Beyond. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 335-358.

O’Keefe JH Jr; Cordain L; Jones PG; Abuissa H. ( 2006). “Coronary artery disease prognosis and C-reactive protein levels improve in proportion to percent lowering of low-density lipoprotein”. The American Journal of Cardiology 98 (1): 135–39. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.062. PMID 16784936.

Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15, 643-649.

Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection (link is external). Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Subscribe now

State University of New York at New Paltz*

Subscribe now

Maintaining Pedagogical Integrity During a Pandemic: Be the Teacher You Are

(Photo Credit: Jeswin Thomas: Pexels)

Each and every industry has been affected by the coronavirus pandemic. As I type, I want you to know that I am a survivor of a serious bout of COVID-19. As a faculty member in the Psychology Department (and Founding Director of Evolutionary Studies) at the State University of New York at New Paltz, I found myself surrounded by hundreds of people from all over New York state during the week of March 9-13, 2020. I hosted a speaker for our evolutionary studies program on Monday, March 9. The topic was parasitism and disease (the speaker was evolutionary biologist, Lydia Bright). More than 100 people from all over our community were in attendance.

That week I taught two sections of my statistics classes (each on two occasions). These sections had 30 students, one of whom, who sat in the front row, tested positive for Corona soon thereafter. Her entire family was afflicted, in fact, as I would come later to find out.

That week, I also attended a large event at the library on campus that celebrated recent books published by our faculty. I must have bumped into 100 people at that event.

In light of the coronavirus emergency, our university decreed that spring break, which had been set for March 16-20, was extended to include the following week (through March 29). Further, it was decreed that all classes would be offered, for the remainder of the semester, via online delivery.

Note that I have taught courses online going back to 1999. I had taught several different classes using online delivery and was not too phased by this change. I figured I’d just deal with it and figure it out.

My fever hit me on Monday, March 16. By the evening of March 17, with the fever worsening, it was pretty obvious to me that I could be afflicted with COVID-19. As it turns out, I was so afflicted (I tested positive a few weeks later, when testing became available in our county). I was bed-bound for 14 straight days with fever, chills, and fatigue that seemed like they were never going away.

Fortunately, the duration of my illness overlapped fully with the duration of our now-elongated Spring Break. I didn’t miss a single teaching moment due to COVID-19, in fact. And I am grateful for this.

Many of our students at SUNY New Paltz come from New York City and the surrounding areas. Not surprisingly, many of our students (along with their family members) were affected by the virus. Several students of mine lost family members during the pandemic. It was truly just horrific.

While many aspects of my life needed attention (such as the fact that my daughter showed symptoms of COVID-19 along with me), teaching my classes, of course, was a very high priority.

While, as mentioned prior, I had taught various courses online over the years, this felt different. Specifically, the idea of teaching Statistics in an online format seemed, to put it simply, rather sketchy. Our department had never offered Statistics in an online format. The several statistics instructors in our department had, independently, decided that the content of this course was simply too intensive and technical to make for a reasonable online course.

So there I was, stricken with the very disease that was causing all of this tumult on a global scale, needing to figure out how to best teach 50% of my Statistics course in a fully online environment.

At the end of the day, while it took a ton of work and energy on my part (at a time when I was experiencing intensive post-COVID fatigue), the course was extremely successful. Not only did students rise to the challenge and demonstrate a strong understanding of the content (in general), but student evaluations of instruction were full of comments speaking to the efficacy of the online delivery. And several students reported feeling grateful for the efforts that I put into the course. Herein, I describe, in both general and specific terms, the strategies that I used to teach this challenging course in a suddenly online format.

Identify Your Inner Teacher

As is true in all areas of human functioning, great teaching comes in a variety forms. Some teachers focus on the delivery of content, while others focus on facilitating student emotional growth. And still others focus on cultivating a strong sense of social justice in each of their students (see Planke et al., 2018). Some teachers are at their best teaching technical information in a large lecture hall, while others shine most when advising students individually during office hours.

If you’re faced with a situation in which you have to teach outside of the box (e.g., suddenly having to change your course to all online delivery), I suggest that you focus first on your own particular strengths and values as a teacher. Ask yourself this: Who is your inner teacher? What are your particular strengths and values as a teacher? And, from there, figure out a way to underscore these strengths in your method of online teaching.

For me, I consider a core strength to be direct communication with students, particularly in a classroom setting. Early in my college teaching career (going back to the University of New Hampshire in 1994), I decided to downplay technology. I don’t use slides. I don’t use PowerPoint. I don’t turn off the lights and show videos on the screen. A core strength of my approach to teaching has always been the old-school chalk-on-the-board method. I make a point to learn all of my students’ names and to work to communicate directly with students as if on an individual level at all times.

Further, I don’t ever want a single student to get lost in the mix. If one student doesn’t understand one bit of the information that is being presented, I will stop my lecture in its tracks to rectify the situation. I have always believed that if one student doesn’t understand something, then it is probably the case that 10 students also don’t understand that same idea. So I lecture relatively slowly, regularly gauging student understanding. And this approach, that characterizes my classes in general, is particularly crucial in my offering of Statistics. So you can imagine how resourceful I needed to be to convert this particular class into an all-online format!

Maintaining the fundamentals of my approach to teaching Statistics (which I first taught in 1996) was foundational in my thinking of how to convert this class for all-online delivery.

The primary element in my strategizing would be this: High-quality videos of me presenting the content of the chapters, on a white board, slowly and clearly. And exactly as I would present the information in actual lectures. Hell or high water, my students were going to get exactly the intensive, detailed, carefully worded, passionate lectures that both they and I had signed up for.

Further, while half the course was already behind us, I decided to make video lectures available for all the content of the course (including the chapters that we’d already gone over). Here, I was being proactive. Who knows when the teaching landscape in higher education is going to change? Who knows if I’ll have to teach this course in an all-online format in the future? Further, I concluded that simply having this content available would allow me to share my take on Statistics (which I have summarized in the textbook that I use for the course, Straightforward Statistics: Understanding the Tools of Research (Geher & Hall, 2014)) for a broad, public audience.

I knew that creating these video modules would take a lot of work. I was betting on a strong payout. In short, my hope was that this work would pay off in students truly learning the information as well as they would if they were taking the class in-person.

As is true of many campuses, our university has lecture-capture technology available in many of the classrooms. In my experience, this technology is lacking in many ways, especially when you need to use this technology solo. We have all seen boring lectures where the speaker can barely be seen and the information on the board is similarly hardly legible.

When a student is learning during a seated class, that student is engaged. Their eyes toggle between the teacher and the content on the board regularly. Lecture-capture technology does not capture this critical dynamic in the teaching/learning process. I thought very briefly about using our campus’ lecture-capture technology and concluded that it simply would not do.

As luck would have it, a family friend, Dayna Thomas, had expressed that she was looking for some work. At the time, she was a journalism major carrying a 4.0 GPA. And she had outstanding videography skills. I concluded that hiring her to record me lecturing on the 12 chapters covered in the book would be exactly what was needed.

As a high-caliber college student herself, she would naturally record my lectures from the perspective of a college student taking notes. Further, as an engaged student, she would provide non-verbale feedback as to whether the content I was providing was clear and sufficiently thorough. And I knew I could count on her to zoom in on key terms on the board at appropriate times so as to mimic how a serious student would approach learning as if actually in the classroom. This is exactly what I needed.

I will say, from a practical standpoint, I paid her $10 for each session from my own pocket. While this is a relatively small cost, in light of the current pandemic and the potentially growing need for online course conversion, I would suggest that university administrations develop ways to systemically support this kind of work. I know that this strategy was, without question, the key to allowing for the success of my online Statistics classes during the 2020 corona crisis.

As something of a sidebar, note that each summer, I typically teach a course called Evolution and the Human Condition in China at Chongqing University of Education. In summer of 2020, of course, I was not able to fly to China to teach this course. So I offered the course in an online format. This same basic algorithm, of providing students with videos of me (recorded from the perspective of an actual college student (my daughter Megan ), was used and was met with much success in terms of student learning outcomes as well as student feedback about the course.

In terms of class time, I essentially used the “flipped classroom” approach. Students were expected to have watched the lectures via video and then they could ask questions during the actual class time (or during office hours). Questions were extremely well-thought-out and all students seemed to be on the same page, leading to high-level discussions that stood atop the base of knowledge that students acquired from the videos.

Further, note that for both my Statistics and Evolution and the Human Condition classes, I put the videos on YouTube and made them freely available for public consumption (links are found in the references). This fact matches my philosophy of education which is that it should be free and accessible to all. And I will say that I have received feedback from people aside from the students in these classes thanking me for these products.

A suggestion that I have for university administrators, based on my experiences with this approach to online teaching, is this: Administrators would be wise to develop systemic processes to support faculty to develop high-quality videos of their lectures that are taken either by actual college students or by individuals who clearly can take a college student perspective. Perhaps departments could support, for instance, advanced students by providing independent study credit for helping an instructor develop such materials. Or perhaps funds could be made available for such work. As indicated above, given the on-the-fly nature of the current situation, I went rogue and ate the costs of producing these videos myself. This said, given my experiences in this area, I would strongly encourage universities to consider ways to systemically and formally support the creation of such products in the name of effective, student-focused pedagogy.

Caution Regarding Technology

As my career has developed, I find myself more and more skeptical of technology as a primary tool in education. A few ago when I was department chair, I was asked by a junior faculty member to sit in on and review his class. It was a class on highly technical information. And it took place at 8:00am.

The first thing that the instructor did was this: He turned off the lights. He then turned on the computer and gave 75 minutes of PowerPoint presentations that I would later learn were provided to the instructor by the publisher of the textbook. I was bored out of my mind. And several students were, rightfully, sleeping.

Injecting yourself into your teaching is, to my mind, what makes higher education exciting. Bringing your passions that led you to want to be a professional scholar on some particular topic into every single element of your teaching is what brings the material alive and inspires students to want to join you in the educational journey that you are leading. Showing students PowerPoints in the dark as a primary MO is, simply, lacking in the luster that surrounds the greatest of teachers. These days, too many teachers are over-reliant on technology.

With online teaching, the temptation to rely on technology is exacerbated. BlackBoard and all its counterparts have more bells and whistles than a brand new BMW. The options available with these software packages are truly dizzying. Sure, I use BlackBoard for some things in my courses. And in an all-online class, it is kind of hard to avoid. But my suggestion regarding technology and education is pretty simple. Remember that technology is a tool for education. It is not an end in and of itself. Textbook publishers and college administrators often seem a little too excited to get faculty to master new online learning processes and systems.

Here are some basic pieces of advice on the use of technology in the teaching process:

• Technology, at some point or another, will fail.

• PowerPoint slides are not match for passionate, clear lectures.

• Students can watch YouTube videos and TED talks on their own without having to pay tuition.

• Most generally, technology often has the capacity to take the professor’s uniqueness out of the equation.

If you’re a college professor, then you got into this profession for a reason. You are passionate about your area of scholarship and your are equally passionate about bringing the excitement that you have for this area to the bright young minds that will lead in the future. Keep yourself in the equation, and don’t forget why you are in this profession in the first place.

(And while the bulk of this article was written before AI slammed itself onto the scene, you can easily see how this same guidance bears on how teachers can deal with the many pedagogical issues brought upon us by the juggernaut that is AI)

Assessment Strategies and Maintaining Personal Connections with Students

When I was faced with the thought of assessing student knowledge for Statistics in an all-online format, I have to say that I had some pause. Usually, in a seated-classroom context, I give students a paper exam with about 15 questions that vary in format. I watch them take the exam. And I write this on the board: You cheat, you die! Of course, this threat is largely in jest. But the point is that you can control academic dishonesty much more in-person than in an online format.

I had to change my assessment processes. I developed an assessment process that, while time-consuming, ended up providing an effective way to assess student learning as well as an effective way to maintain personal connections with students during a difficult time.

I created a system for giving oral exams via ZOOM. In doing this, for each exam, I developed a list of about 10 potential questions. I asked each student, by a random procedure, four of these questions during 15-minute slots. I developed a grading algorithm and recorded each session in case any equivocation over grades emerged. No student complained about any grades.

These ZOOM sessions provided not only an opportunity to look students in the eyes and truly assess their knowledge of the content, but they also provided an opportunity to check in with each student individually on multiple occasions before the end of the semester. I asked students how they were doing with the pandemic, how their families were doing, etc. I have to say, it was a nice opportunity to stay connected with our students during a difficult time.

Since the semester ended, I’ve stayed in touch with many of these students and have served as a reference for several for jobs and graduate-program applications. Being able to stay connected to my students in spite of the online nature of the course delivery was critical for me and I’m glad to say that the system I implemented helped to maintain this important (and human) part of the teaching process.

Bottom Line

Effective teaching requires resourcefulness and flexibility. You never know exactly how things are going to go or what new obstacles might present themselves during any given semester.

The corona pandemic of 2020 served as perhaps the most challenging hurdle that the field of higher education has seen in our lifetime. The forced conversion of classes of all kinds, from all fields, at all levels, into an online format, was simply unprecedented.

Further, when it comes to online teaching, a broad array of possibilities exist. Decisions need to be made regarding synchronous versus asynchronous teaching. Processes regarding office hours needed to be figured out. Platforms for communicating with students needed to be determined. Mechanisms for delivering content needed to be figured out. And more.

On top of all this, these decisions needed to be made quickly. And several of us, myself included, actually had to make these decisions while actually being afflicted with COVID-19 at the same time, not knowing if we would actually live to see our courses to completion.

Based on my experiences of teaching seated and online classes for decades, I would guide teachers who are forced to quickly develop their classes into online classes to, above anything else, make sure to not let their inner teacher get lost in the mix. Find ways to bring your own identity as a teacher, including all your strengths and values, along for the ride as you develop and implement the online version of your class. You and your students will both benefit as a result.

Subscribe now

References

Geher, G., & Hall, S. (2014). Straightforward Statistics: Understanding the Tools of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

*Note: This article was written for an edited academic book regarding issues connected to teaching during the pandemic. For various reasons, the project was rescinded—thus, I am publishing it here!

(photo credit: Glenn Geher; sunset over New Paltz, NY in September)

Subscribe now

What is the meaning of life? Sure, we've all asked ourselves this one. And, of course, whether there is some actual right answer is kind of up for grabs and probably always will be.

Some people focus on finding true happiness (e.g., Maslow, 1943). Others focus on leaving a positive mark (see Geher & Wedberg, 2022). While others still might focus on serving a particular religious code as diligently as possible (see Wilson, 2002). And this list is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the age-old question surrounding the purpose of life.

Is Self-Actualization the Answer?

In 1943, renowned psychologist, Abraham Maslow, presented the world with a powerful model regarding human needs. His basic idea, simple yet profound, was that needs are arranged hierarchically for humans. Basic, lower-level needs, such as the need for food and oxygen, are foundational. And it is hard to focus on higher-level needs, such as belonging-ness or love, if such lower-level needs are not being met.

Atop Maslow's famed pyramid of needs is self-actualization, which can be seen as a state of being in which one's lower-level needs are generally satisfied and one is able to focus on big-picture needs such as finding one's true purpose in life; self-actualization largely focuses on the meaning of one's life.

Hey, don't get me wrong: I think that meaning and purpose are critical and worthy goals to pursue along one's journey. And self-actualization, especially as conceptualized by the newest treatise on this topic, Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization, written by Scott Barry Kaufman (2020), is a significant part of the broader human experience.

But as someone whose work focuses on the evolutionary origins of human social behavior, I would like to provide something of a counterpoint to this idea that self-actualization should somehow be the end-all/be-all.

Individualism, Collectivism, and the Purpose of Life

While human cultures across the globe share a great many attributes with one another, cultural variation in important broad themes certainly exists. One of the primary ways that cultures differ from one another is found in the dimension of Individualism/Collectivism (see Triandis & Gelfand, 2012). Individualistic cultures tend to place a large emphasis on the needs and goals of individuals. The United States is often given as a classic example. In such cultures, people are taught from early on to stand up for themselves and to make sure to get their fair share.

In collectivistic cultures, with Japan often being given as a classic exemplar, people are taught, from early on, very much the opposite of what people in individualistic cultures are taught. In collectivistic cultures, there is a large emphasis on putting one's own needs aside to help address the needs of one's broader group or community.

A simple way to think about the difference between an individualistic culture versus a collectivistic culture pertains to the idea of standing out. In an individualistic culture, people are encouraged to stand out or to stand apart from others. People are encouraged to be unique or to gain a reputation as elite in some field.

In collectivistic cultures, standing out is often discouraged: Thus the adage: The nail that stands out gets hammered down. In collectivistic cultures, making waves is not typically encouraged. In individualistic cultures, on the other hand, making waves is, under some conditions, encouraged and can even be seen as admirable.

In his work over the years on this cultural dimension, Triandis has found that these cultural approaches can be so powerful as to literally seep into the identities of people's unconscious minds. If you were raised in a hyper-individualistic culture, you may well have an individualistic mindset that flavors many facets of your identity without you even realizing it!

So now, let's rethink about the purpose of life. In light of the fact that people vary in terms of how individualistic or collectivistic their worldview may be (largely as a result of cultural upbringing), doesn't it make sense that life's purpose should vary quite a bit between those with individualistic mindsets versus those with collectivistic mindsets?

Now get back to the idea of self-actualization. Inherent in the term is a clearly individualistic slant. It is an ideal state of being that focuses on advancing oneself to a higher level. This goal makes a lot of sense from an individualistic perspective, but it may well seem a bit off from a collectivistic perspective.

Community, Evolution, and the Meaning of Life

As I've written about in much of my past work, community is a critical part of the human evolutionary experience. Until very recently in our evolutionary history (approximately 10,000 years, corresponding to the advent of agriculture), all Homo sapiens lived in nomadic clans that were capped at about 150 (see Dunbar, 1992). Such clans often would have relied on a collectivistic mindset, as is found in a majority of nomadic clans found around the world today.

In short, humans largely evolved in collectivistic cultures, where the focus of one's energies were not on oneself but, rather, were directed toward goals that would have been beneficial for one's group and broader community. Higher-order goals in such a context were not likely about one finding his or her own personal meaning. Rather, higher-order goals likely focused on advancing the welfare of others around oneself. Perhaps, in such a cultural context, communal-actualization would be more appropriate as a life goal rather than self-actualization.

Bottom Line

Humanistic and positive psychologists, such as Abraham Maslow, Martin Seligman, and Scott Barry Kaufman, have shed enormous light on the inner workings of the human experience. In fact, these scholars have all contributed positively in adding to our understanding of what it means to live a life well-lived. And we should be grateful for their efforts and insights. I particularly encourage folks who are interested in this topic to check out Kaufman’s book (mentioned above) as well as Doug Kenrick and David Lundberg Kenrick’s book, Solving Modern Problems With a Stone-Age Brain: Human Evolution and the Seven Fundamental Motives, for a deeper dive into these issues.

An evolutionary perspective on the human experience that focuses on our small-scale, communal roots suggests that the focus on self-actualization, found in the work of many modern behavioral scientists, may be somewhat limited. We are, at the end of the day, a highly communal ape with roots in a collectivistic approach to being. As such, an ultimate life-goal of any person may well focus not so much on oneself as an individual but, rather, on one's role in enriching the worlds of those around him or her and, more broadly, cultivating one's surrounding community.

What is the purpose of life? Sure, moving toward self-actualization may well be part of it. But let's not forget community-actualization along the way.

This post was largely inspired by a conversation I recently had with a good friend who works as a therapist. I think that the current global pandemic sparked all kinds of conversations among all kinds of people regarding life's meaning.

Subscribe now

References

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22(6), 469–493.

Geher, G. & Wedberg, N. (2022). Positive Evolutionary Psychology: Darwin’s Guide to Living a Richer Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, S. B. (2020). Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization. New York: TarcherPerigree.

Kenrick, Douglas T, David E Lundberg-Kenrick, and JSTOR. Solving Modern Problems with a Stone-Age Brain : Human Evolution and the Seven Fundamental Motives. Washington, DC: APA LifeTools, 2022.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50 (4): 370–96.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). A theory of individualism and collectivism. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (p. 498–520). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n51

Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Note: This post is adapted from a post that I published for Psychology Today. I own the copyright for the content.

Sociologists often target large-scale poverty as sitting at the center of so many of the world’s ills.

(Photo by Mumtahina Tanni / Pexels)

Subscribe now

At this point in my career as a behavioral scientist, I’ve become truly interested in how I can use my work to push the needle—even if just a nudge—to do my part to help make for a brighter world in the future.

Toward this end, along with my star alum Nicole Wedberg—and several other alumni and students of our programs at the State University of New York at New Paltz—I’ve worked to develop an emerging field called Positive Evolutionary Psychology. The basic idea here is to use insights and research from the field of Evolutionary Psychology to help shed light on the positive aspects of the human experience.

Initially, we’d thought about this concept being parallel with the field of Positive Psychology, focusing on ways to cultivate thriving at the individual and community levels. Yet recently, I’ve become very interested in how the field of evolutionary psychology can help make positive change at the broader societal level.

This idea first came to me in response to a comment from a student. I was teaching about the idea of evolutionary mismatch in public education—which is essentially the idea that public education is partly fraught with problems because the experience provided for kids in most schools varies wildly from the kinds of learning contexts that ancestral children would have experienced during the ancestral times and conditions that primarily shaped our evolved psychology. Along the way, I commented about how some scholars, such as Peter Gray (2011) and Kathryne Gruskin (Gruskin et al., 2025) talk about certain kinds of schools that actually take an evolutionary approach into account, such as schools found in the Sudbury model (a private school approach that leans on evolutionary concepts in many ways).

A student immediately raised her hand and asked, kind of sharply, how much a Sudbury education costs. We looked it up together. The answer is approximately $10,000 a year per student (as in this example of one such school near my home in New York’s Hudson Valley).

The student essentially responded by saying what a shame it is that the ability to have an evolutionarily informed (and famously high-caliber) education at a Sudbury school prices out a large proportion of the population—particularly those who are impoverished (which, according the World Bank, includes about 18% of people in the United States)—a rate that is higher than comparable rates in such nations as China, Belarus, Canada, Sweden, Jordan, Ireland, and dozens of others—including (perhaps surprisingly, based on the Borat movies) Kazakhstan.

(Photo credit: Open Democracy / Wikimedia Commons)

Think about that.

I think this student was onto something. And ever since that moment, I have been giving much thought to the issue of poverty—along, in particular, with how work in the evolutionary behavioral sciences may help to rectify this monster of a problem.

Poverty and Fiscal Inequality

The US not only scores high among countries in the industrialized world in terms of the percentage of citizens who live in poverty (based on globally determined standards). The US also famously scores high in markers of fiscal inequality—the gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots. This concept is often indexed by the Gini Index. Based on Gini data provided by the World Bank, the score for the US is currently just over 41—with higher numbers on this scale corresponding to a larger gap between the Haves and Have-Nots within a country.

Within the industrialized world, 41 is a wildly high score on this index. To give a frame of reference, note that this number is higher than is the Gini index for the following nations:

• Canada

• China

• India

• Japan

• The United Kingdom

• Uzbekistan

• and yes, Kazakhstan (sitting with a Gini index of 29.2; about 30% lower than that of the US).

And, perhaps unsurprisingly, fiscal inequality at the national level is strongly correlated with poverty rate at the national level. In a recent study that examines this relation in over 30 countries (that happen to be in Africa), the absolute correlation between fiscal inequality and rate of poverty is about .46 (see Amponsah et al, 2023). If you are a scholar or student in the behavioral sciences, you will recognize this as a robust correlation. So while fiscal inequality and poverty are not one-and-the-same, they do strongly predict one another. They are, to nerd out a bit more, inter-correlated. When you see one, you are likely to see the other as well.

So if you want to make a dent toward eradicating poverty in your nation, you’d be wise to work to create policies and programs that have the goal of closing the fiscal divide in your country.

And even if you truly believe that poor people deserve their lot in life, you probably still want poverty in your nation to reduce. And that is because high rates of poverty go with all kinds of adverse outcomes (such as crime; Graif et al., 2014)—outcomes that cost taxpayers enormous amounts of money in the long run. In other words, working to eradicate fiscal inequality and its nasty sibling poverty ultimately have positive fiscal effects at the national level.

Outcomes Associated with Poverty

To understand why poverty hurts everyone (not just the poor), think about this highly incomplete sample of adverse effects associated with poverty—effects that both hurt people and cost taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money.

• Relatively high rates of crime (see Graif et al., 2014)

• Low access to high-quality education (see Mihai et al., 2015)

• Low access to physical healthcare (see Lazar & Davenport, 2018)

• Low access to mental healthcare (Knifton & Ingils, 2020)

• Low access to healthy foods (Sisk et al., 2023)

• Low access to opportunities for exercise (e.g., long-distance running—a sport of the privileged; Akbas et al., 2025)

and more. Way more.

The costs of these outcomes is nothing short of extraordinary. Of course there are fiscal costs (e.g., someone has to ultimately pay for the healthcare of people who are disproportionately likely to fall ill due to lack of access to healthy foods and exercise—coupled with low access to healthcare). But there are other costs as well. The human cost is extraordinary. We are talking about millions of US lives here—approximately 1/5 of our population live in formally impoverished conditions—and thus they have no choice but to live with the reality painted in the bullet points above.

Think about that.

Bottom Line

As a behavioral scientist who is interested in using science the make the world a better place, I am fully convinced that poverty is, without question, one of the biggest challenges to people across the world. And if you’re not in poverty, you’re surely affected by outcomes such as a high proportion of citizens who are in poor health in your country, crime, unequal educational opportunities, and more. When there is so much poverty in a nation, everyone feels it (whether they realize it or not).

And based on work examining the relationship between fiscal inequality and poverty at the national level, it turns out that these outcomes are strongly intertwined. While reducing levels of fiscal inequality is only part of the solution—there is no doubt that it is, indeed, part of the solution.

We create and implement policies that have the effect of increasing the great fiscal divide to the detriment of all of us.

Think about that.

Subscribe now

References

Akbaş A, Żebrowska A, Malchrowicz-Mośko E, Stempień J, Bezuglov E, Górka-Chowaniec A, Waśkiewicz Z. (2025). Socioeconomic status and motivation in endurance sports: insights from long-distance running. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1527661.

Amponasah, M. Agbola, F. W., & Mahmood, A. (2023). The relationship between poverty, income inequality and inclusive growth in Sub-Saharan Africa, Economic Modelling, 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106415.

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.

Geher, G. & Wedberg, N. (2022). Positive Evolutionary Psychology: Darwin’s Guide to Living a Richer Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Graif, C., Gladfelter, A.S., & Matthews, S. A. (2014). Urban Poverty and Neighborhood Effects on Crime: Incorporating Spatial and Network Perspectives. Sociology Compass, 8, 1140-1155. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12199.

Gray, P. (2011). Free to Learn. New York: Basic Books.

Gruskin, K., Griffin, M., Bansal, S., Dickinson-Frevola, S., Dykeman, A., Groce-Volinski, D., Henriquez, K., Kardas, M., McCarthy, A., Shetty, A., Staccio, B., Geher, G., & Eisenberg, E. (2025). Stakeholders’ Roles in Evolutionizing Education: An Evolutionary-Based Toolkit Surrounding Elementary Education. Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010092

Knifton L, & Inglis G. Poverty and mental health: policy, practice and research implications. British Journal of Psychology: Bulletin, 44, 193-196. doi: 10.1192/bjb.2020.78

Lazar M, & Davenport L. (2018). Barriers to Health Care Access for Low Income Families: A Review of Literature. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 35, 28-37. doi: 10.1080/07370016.2018.1404832. PMID: 29323941.

Mihai, M., Ţiţan, E., & Manea, D. (2015). Education and Poverty, Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 855-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01532-4.

Sisk, A., Rappazzo, K., Luben, T., & Fefferman, N. (2023). Connecting people to food: A network approach to alleviating food deserts. Journal of Transport and Health, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101627.

(photo credit: Kara McCurdy / Wikimedia Commons)

Subscribe now

With Zohran Mamdani winning the Democratic primary for the current mayoral race in New York City, the concept of socialism is suddenly a very hot item. In many corners of our nation, socialism is considered nearly blasphemous. In fact, in 2023, the United States Congress passed a motion (H.Con.Res.9) denouncing the horrors of socialism. That said, perhaps it would be helpful to take a hard look at what socialism actually is, along with its history and its potential place in the modern, industrialized world.

On social media recently, I saw a telling meme about this topic, saying this: When Jesus wants to feed the poor, it's Christianity. When government wants to feed the poor, it's socialism.

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people (in the words of Abraham Lincoln, given as part of his renowned Gettysburg Address). Further, that sounds a lot like socialism to me.

And Lincoln was not the only old-school president to clearly include some level of socialism in his value system. Perhaps most famously, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal had all the hallmarks of socialism—his goal was to provide opportunities for all Americans to work, have shelter, have food, healthcare, and education. And, famously, this approach got our country out of the Great Depression. FDR's socialism worked.

From this backdrop, I have to say that I have a hard time dismissing socialism and am concerned when I hear people like Zohran Mamdani getting criticized for supporting such an other-oriented, humanistic set of values. In short, if supporting socialism is wrong, I don’t want to be right…

Egalitarianism as the Natural State of Things

In a recent study of four different nomadic groups in Africa, Thompson et al. (2025) provide evidence that various unrelated nomadic groups are all, in the authors' words, "fiercely egalitarian." This point is consistent with the work of many others (see Bingham & Souza, 2009), suggesting that egalitarianism, while not the only way of organizing societies, is, in fact, perhaps the most common form of social organization in the nomadic world.

Egalitarianism is essentially the practice of making things fair for everyone. For instance, I work to teach my courses in a highly egalitarian manner. I work to not over-benefit some students (e.g., students whom I have had in class before) over others (e.g., quiet students who rarely contribute to class). I try to lift up all my students equally (and I think it often works). I work for a state university and I see egalitarianism in the classroom as consistent with all the goals of my institution (and, ultimately, with the goals of the State of New York).

Egalitarianism is important to understand from an evolutionary perspective, as we know that all humans were nomads up until a relatively brief 10,000 years ago (see Geher & Wedberg, 2022). In essence, humans tend to lean egalitarian. And this makes sense as ancestral human groups were largely comprised of kin and familiar others in stable, small-scale societies. And in this kind of world, there are all kinds of pressures for people to be other-oriented and to help one another and to create systems that are fair for everyone. Egalitarinism makes lots of sense in such contexts.

Egalitarianism, Socialism, and Humanism

While egalitarianism, socialism, and humanism are not identical approaches to the human experience, they do have much overlap. Socialism is essentially an approach to governing people that takes an egalitarianism approach. When FDR talked about the New Deal, he talked about lifting up all Americans and, ultimately, leveling the playing field. This brand of socialism is essentially applied egalitarianism—it is building egalitarianism into the laws and processes of the government. And, again, it cannot be stated enough: It was the New Deal, a deeply socialist doctrine, that got the United States out of the Great Depression. This point essentially provides evidence that helping everyone, ultimately can be good for the nation.

The doctrine of humanism is based partly on the principle that we have the responsibility to respect and care for one another and respecting and protecting everyone's human rights. Clearly, there is overlap between humanism, socialism, and egalitarianism.

And regarding this broader approach to organizing societies, it cannot be understated that (a) this approach to social organization seems to most closely match ancestral forms of social organization during human evolutionary history and (b) it has been shown to be successful in creating effective, fair, and often-thriving nations (such as so many of the northern European countries (such as Finland, which is often scores as the happiest nation on Earth)).

Fiscal Inequality and the GINI Index

The GINI index marks how large the fiscal divide is within a country. A country in which people generally have comparable resources as one another would score low on the GINI index, while a country scoring high on the GINI index would be marked by having a relatively large fiscal divide.

Interestingly, among industrialized nations, the United States tends to score relatively high in the GINI index, meaning that among similar nations, the US has a larger divide between the haves and have-nots than is typical.

In a sense, this fact is unfortunate as poverty, which goes hand-in-hand with high scores on the GINI index* has regularly been shown to correspond to concerning outcomes when it comes to things like health, longevity, and education (among many other kinds of outcomes; see Neaumayer et al., 2016).

Bottom Line

The most common form of social organization under ancestral conditions was most likely found in egalitarianism, which maps strongly onto the doctrines of socialism and humanism (see Bingham & Souza, 2009).

The vilification of socialism in many pockets of the modern industrialized world (as is prevalent in the United States) seems to be uninformed by this important facet of our evolutionary history.

Further, the opposite of socialism, found in the most brazen forms of capitalism, seems to lead to major fiscal inequality which tends to amplify poverty and all the horrors that come along for the ride.

Perhaps at this time in history, we would be wise to more fully understand socialism, including its history and its implications. Maybe NYC Mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, by being outwardly socialistic (as I am), is tapping into some basic part of our evolved psychology. And perhaps, as was true in FDR's day, some variant of socialism, coupled with unbridled Humanism and egalitarianism, will emerge as exactly what is needed to get this wildly unstable world back on track.

References

Bingham, P. M., & Souza, J. (2009). Death from a distance and the birth of a humane universe. BookSurge Publishing.

Geher, G. & Wedberg, N. (2022). Positive Evolutionary Psychology: Darwin’s Guide to Living a Richer Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Neumayer E, Plümper T. Inequalities of Income and Inequalities of Longevity: A Cross-Country Study. Am J Public Health. 2016 Jan;106(1):160-5. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302849. Epub 2015 Nov 12. PMID: 26562120; PMCID: PMC4695950.

Thomson, J., Lew-Levy, S., Rueden, C. von, & Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. E. (2025). “Fiercely Egalitarian”: Thematic Cross-Cultural Analysis Reveals Regularities in the Maintenance of Egalitarianism Across Four Independent African Hunter-Gatherer Groups. Cross-Cultural Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971251338210

*Information from the World Inequality Database here

Subscribe now

Note: This post is adapted from a post I published at Psychology Today. I own the copyright to the material.

(photo credit: Google DeepMind/Pexels)

Subscribe now

Here’s an interesting thing about psychology: For the most part, everyone, regardless of their educational background, feels like an expert in the field. This is not true of, say, biochemistry, geochemical engineering, or astrophysics.

As someone who both studies human psychology from a scientific standpoint for a living—and as a person who simply wants to understand what’s up with people—I get it. Not every Ph.D. in psychology is a genius when it comes to understanding the human condition. And plenty of “non-psychologists” have shed important light on the nature of human behavior—Kurt Vonnegut, Frida Kahlo, Bob Dylan, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, etc.

This said, as someone from within the formal field of scientific psychology, and as someone who has taught university-level classes in the field for decades, I think it’s noteworthy that there are many popular misconceptions about human psychology. Put another way, there are concepts in the field that students of psychology regularly find difficult to understand.

Following is a list of 11 psychological concepts that students regularly struggle to understand:

1. Personality Types vs. Personality Dimensions

More often than not, psychologists who study personality concepts, such as narcissism, are talking about a continuous dimension that people vary on—not a categorical variable. For the lion’s share of personality traits, psychologists talk about the degree to which someone scores high on a dimension (e.g., Joe scored slightly above average on narcissism)—not whether someone is definitively “in this category” or not.

2. Nature vs. Nurture

Rarely do psychologists consider the cause of some behavior as due solely to either “nature” (meaning, roughly, biology) or “nurture” (the environment). For the most part, psychologists will talk about some psychological feature (e.g., how extraverted someone is) as the product of the interaction of both nature and nurture across the lifespan. The idea of behavior being due exclusively to nature or nurture is, actually, something of a myth.

3. Psychologist vs. Therapist

The term “psychologist” is probably broader than you might realize. A psychologist is anyone who studies behavior (across any and all species) and/or works to apply ideas from research in the behavioral sciences to help address specific issues, such as the mental health of clients. The term “therapist” is more specific, applying only to individuals who apply psychological concepts to helping individuals deal with psychological issues (e.g., mental health counselors). The two terms are not interchangeable.

4. Psychologist vs. Psychiatrist

Psychologists are behavioral scientists or practitioners who study behavior from a scientific perspective or who apply such concepts to applied issues (such as helping individuals deal with personal problems). Psychiatrists are medical doctors who use a combination of medical and behavioral science training to help people deal with problems. A psychiatrist, then, is a particular kind of therapist. And the terms psychologist and psychiatrist are not interchangeable.

5. Type-1 Error

Psychological research is largely based on statistical findings. When a researcher obtains a finding in a study that shows as “significant,” he or she could be wrong—in fact, the finding could not be a valid representation of how things are in the world, in spite of what the researcher found. If a researcher finds something to be significant, but is actually wrong, we call this “Type-1 Error.”

6. Type-2 Error

When a researcher obtains a finding in a study that shows as “not significant,” he or she could be wrong. If a researcher finds something to be not significant, but is actually wrong, we call this “Type-2 Error.”

7. Experiment vs. Quasi-Experiment

A true experiment is the only way that we can make causal inferences regarding the relationship between variables. And a true experiment requires random assignment to different conditions.

If you are doing a study and want to see if people in one situation (e.g., those who drink a lot of coffee) behave differently from those in another condition (e.g., those who do not drink coffee), you need to randomly assign people to one of these two conditions. A study that looks for differences in some outcome between naturally occurring groups (e.g., people who regularly drink coffee versus those who don’t) is a “quasi-experiment” and cannot establish whether changes in one variable cause changes in the other variable.

8. Statistical Interactions

Sometimes, a variable will have one effect on one group of people and a totally different effect on some other group of people. Thus, the effects of some variable on some outcome variable often depend on some other variable.

If you want to see whether teenagers are more likely than other age groups to choose to be in the company of others, it would be helpful to know whether they have, for example, combed their hair within the last 24 hours, and whether they will be in the company of family members or strangers. Teens who have not combed their hair might be more likely to choose the company of others if they are going to be in the company of family members.

Sometimes, the effects of one variable (which people you would be spending time with) depend on some other variable (whether you have combed your hair) in determining some outcome (whether you choose to see those people). Understanding statistical interactions helps us understand nuances in behavior.

9. What Is “Natural” vs. What Is “Right”

Sometimes a student hears a behavior described as “natural” and misconstrues this as meaning that the behavior is morally right or justified. For instance, David Buss (2006) made a good case that homicide in humans has a strong evolutionary basis. Importantly, Buss is not arguing that homicide “should” happen in humans. Rather, his scientific analysis of the issues suggests that homicide is part of human nature.

Mistaking what “is” as what “ought to be” is an example of fallacious thinking. Scientifically trained psychologists are educated in this important distinction.

10. Multifactorial Causation

One of the most fundamental problems with how most people understand psychology is this: People often fall into the trap of thinking that there is a single cause of any behavioral outcome. In fact, trained psychologists know full well that multiple causes are often at play in shaping any behavior.

Mass shootings, which comprise a horrific facet of modern life, provide a clear example of this kind of reasoning. Some people argue that mass shootings are the result of mental health problems. Others argue that mass shootings are the result of poor laws regarding gun control. In fact, both issues have been shown to play a role. And several other factors have also been implicated in this complex societal issue. For the lion’s share of behaviors, multiple factors are at play.

11. Ancestral Conditions Importantly Help to Explain Modern Human Behavior

People who are first exposed to the idea of evolutionary psychology, which is largely based on the idea that our psychology evolved not for current industrial contexts but, rather, for ancestral nomadic contexts, often don’t get the idea that our evolved psychology, in many ways, was shaped not to help us in the modern, industrial world but, rather, our psychology was shaped to match ancestral human conditions (See Geher & Wedberg, 2022). This is why, for instance, people often experience public speaking anxiety when presenting in front of strangers. Under ancestral conditions, people only rarely interacted with strangers—and the idea of giving a large public talk to them would have essentially never happened. Similarly, humans in the industrialized world today tend to be more phobic of snakes than guns, in spite of the fact that, these days, guns account for more deaths than do snakes (in most parts of the industrialized world).

Bottom Line

Whether others in our field like it or not, having a Ph.D. in psychology does not really qualify us to be experts on the entirety of human behavior. There are experts on human behavior, in fact, from across many fields beyond psychology.

This said, the formal field of scientific psychology has shed important light on what it means to be human. From the perspective of someone who has taught in this field for decades, I can say that the issues described here are concepts that students regularly find difficult to understand. To advance our knowledge of what it means to be human, we’d be wise to make sure that students of psychology demonstrate a strong understanding of these concepts before going out into the world.

Subscribe now

References

Buss, D. M. (2006). The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill. New York: Penguin.

Geher, G. & Wedberg, N. (2022). Positive Evolutionary Psychology: Darwin’s Guide to Living a Richer Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Note: This post is adapted from a piece that Glenn wrote for Psychology Today. Glenn owns the copyright to this material.

(Image is cover of book by Kurt Vonnegut; published by Dell in 1972)

Subscribe now

In 2012, after being home to various classes of primates for more than 100 years, the renowned Monkey House at the Bronx Zoo closed down. The zoo's current primate inhabitants reside in spaces designed to match their natural habitats. The shift is part of a broader movement in zoos around the world, based on the highly reasonable idea that all species have evolved to fit particular environmental conditions. Such features that typify an organism's ancestral conditions characterize its Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness or EEA (Bowlby, 1969). Housing a monkey, whose ancestors go millions of years deep into specific African jungle environments, in a small cage in the zoo of a large city was simply evolutionarily misguided—and arguably cruel.

Animals essentially need to have many key features of their ancestral environments in their current conditions—because their bodies and minds are the result of evolutionary processes that took place under these specific conditions. In an evolutionarily novel and unnatural environment, solid research shows that various primates will demonstrate signs of physiological and psychological stress (see Harlow & Suomi, 1971).

This idea critically relates to the nature of being human in modern times. If you live in a modern, Westernized part of the world—as you almost certainly do if you’re reading this—then you are, in many ways, metaphorically living in a cage in a zoo.

A key principle of evolutionary psychology (see Geher, 2014) is the notion that modern humans in Westernized societies experience important instances of evolutionary mismatch. Understanding this is essential in understanding much of what it means to be human today.

Here is a list of 11 ways that modern, Westernized humans like you and me are, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, living “in the Monkey House”:

11. You have been required to engage in public speaking to a group of strangers on more occasions than was true for our pre-agrarian ancestors.

10. You are surrounded in your day-to-day life by a higher proportion of strangers than would ever have been true of our pre-agrarian hominid ancestors.

9. You run into a higher total number of people each day than our pre-agrarian hominid ancestors ever would have.

8. You have the option of spending 90 percent of your waking hours sitting at a desk—and you often exercise this option.

7. Your extended family includes people dispersed across hundreds or thousands of miles (think New York and Florida).

6. You have been exposed to more images of violence than ever would have been possible for pre-agrarian hominids.

5. You were likely educated in an age-stratified system—spending each of several years in a group comprised of about 25 others who matched you in age—being taught in a classroom environment by a few specially designated “teachers.” You likely spent a lot of time sitting behind desks in the process.

4. You are exposed regularly to politics at a global scale—often discussing or being involved in issues that potentially pertain to thousands, millions, or even billions of other humans.

3. You were raised in some variant of a nuclear family—with less assistance from aunts, uncles, older cousins, and grandparents, than would have been typical of our nomadic ancestors.

2. You spend a great deal of time interacting with “screens” and “devices”—having the evolutionarily unprecedented possibility of almost never having to be bored at all.

1. You can eat an entire diet of processed foods—and you live in a world in which processed foods are cheaper and more accessible than natural foods.

This list is certainly incomplete and, at best, preliminary—there are undoubtedly many other worthy contenders. That said, I’m hopeful that the list can help open the eyes of those interested in human psychology to the importance of evolutionary mismatch in understanding all aspects of who we are.

Welcome to the Monkey House.

Subscribe now

References: Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.

Harlow, H.F., & Suomi, S. J. (1971). Social Recovery by Isolation-Reared Monkeys, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 68,1534-1538.

Vonnegut, K. (1968). Welcome to the Monkey House. New York: Delacorte Press.

Variants of this post are cross-posted at evostudies.org and Psychology Today. Glenn owns the copyright.

Steal a lot and they make you king (Dylan, Sweetheart Like You, 1983).

(photo credit: Pixabay / Pexels)

In a recent post regarding Trump’s impact on academia, University of Arkansas scholar, Nathanial Bork, has posted a provocative piece* regarding Trump’s impact on higher education. Creatively, he couches this piece in the context of some of Bob Dylan’s famously stirring lyrics. Well as someone who is also well-versed in the words of the bard—and as someone who also has a dog in the race regarding what happens with the future of higher education (as well as our shared future writ large)—I’d say that two can play that game.

Subscribe now

Following the guidance of the explicitly conservative Project 2025 document (officially titled: Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), edited by Paul Dans and Steven Grove) on changes that seem to affect nearly every aspect of American life, the Trump administration is brazenly implementing (or trying to implement) monumental changes to so many spheres of the lives of all of us.

To his credit, Bork’s piece has thoughtful and moderate (and certainly informed) elements. Further, several of my own publications are critical of various aspects of higher education (See Mackiel, Link, & Geher, 2023; Geher & Rolon, 2019).

I’ve been either a student or faculty member in higher education (having taught at eight different institutions) since 1988. So I know the terrain pretty well.

In teaching college, we often make a point to teach our students about the importance of understanding and presenting “both sides” of pretty much any and all issues (with important exceptions pertaining to subjects such as astrology, flat-earth theory, etc.).

In his piece, Bork follows this standard academic practice of presenting “both sides” when it comes to Trump’s approach to higher education. I have to say, while I usually support this general approach to presenting information, in the current case, I do not. As I stated in this piece a few years ago about the January 6, 2021 riot on the capital building that tragically led to the death of five people, including a police officer and a veteran of the United States Air Force, sometimes, one side is simply right. (You remember that nightmare, right?!)

I have to say that I am discouraged to see a fellow academic supporting Trump’s approach in any capacity. His efforts and actions that have the intent (or effect) of intimidating academics and other educators, discouraging free speech, shaking the core of our economy, gutting funding for extremely important projects such as the NIH-Supported Women’s Health Initiative, etc., are, as I see it, moving us all, at breakneck speed, toward a fascist, non-democratic future. I just don’t think that any people who identify as American signed up for this.

Not only are the policies that are being implemented often questionable and unsettling, but the process by which these policies are being implemented is nothing short of reckless. It is as if a machete is being used for an intricate surgery on a treasured family member when a scalpel is the optimal tool.**

I have to say, that while I do think higher education in the US could use some improvements in many areas, the hyper-aggressive approach that is being implemented to our industry (as well as to so many others) is nothing short of reckless and inhumane.

It is also hypocritical in so many ways (see my piece on this issue from Psychology Today here). Vice President Vance is on record as referring to “the professors” as “the enemy.” I wonder what his professors, to whom he owes much gratitude, from Ohio State University and Yale University think about this framing. I hope he has told these professors who helped him with his achievements in his career this: Thank you. But somehow I doubt it.

While talking about hypocrisy, it is important to note that Donald Trump would probably not be in the position that he is currently in had it not been for the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, where he obtained a degree in economics. If the faculty at Penn who taught him are anything like the professors whom I work with at SUNY New Paltz, they worked tirelessly—often around the clock—to provide him with the best education that they were capable of providing.

The authors of the nefarious Project 2025 document similarly owe debts of gratitude to important US institutions of higher education. Paul Dans holds degrees from MIT and UVA while Steven Grove holds degrees from both Harvard and Claremont McKenna.

For such individuals to treat US higher education with profound and public levels of disrespect is, to my mind, just wrong.

Bort starts his piece with a section titled Why Trump’s Reforms are Necessary, which is soon followed by a section titled Why Trump’s Reforms are Horrendous.

As someone who is deeply concerned about our nation turning into a fascist dictatorship (and there is good evidence that validates this concern), I simply reject the sentiment that any of Trump’s policies on higher education are necessary. I think that they are steeped in an extreme form of conservatism that dismisses the reasons that higher education in the US currently takes the form that it takes.

Near the end of this piece, I provide (as Bort does) a suggested path forward on this issue. I hope people find it helpful.

Critical Race Theory, US History, and Systemic Racism

Oxford town around the bend
Come to the door, he couldn't get in
All because of the color of his skin
What do you think about that, my friend? (Dylan, Oxford Town, 1963)

(photo credit: Life Matters / Pexels)

Bob Dylan first made a name for himself singing protest songs—many of which focused on the African American experience in this country which has a famously complex and extremely depressing history.

Ideas such as Critical Race Theory, taught in various academic contexts in higher education, did not show up spontaneously or in a vacuum. These ideas are directly and deeply rooted in the systemic racism that has characterized our nation since its inception (see Needham, 2022). Institutions (or systems) such as slavery and segregation in the South (which exemplify perhaps the most blatant forms of systemic racism) have shaped so many features of our country’s history.

Critical Race Theory (see Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2018) largely is a way of thinking about broader societal issues, such as the substantial health and economic disparities that exist across racial and ethnic groups in the US, based on principles of systemic racism and history. While some of the details of Critical Race Theory may still need empirical support—to dismiss the basic idea that this country has enormous disparities across racial and ethnic groups when it comes to fiscal outcomes, health outcomes, educational outcomes, and more would fly in the face of all kinds of data. And to argue that such disparities are unrelated to our nation’s unique (and shameful) history on these issues—coupled with systemic racism—is not a pill that I am willing to swallow.

In my scholarship, I do not focus on Critical Race Theory. But as a scholar, I am an advocate of academic freedom and I firmly stand with the idea that scholars in a particular field should be involved in conversations about the principles of their own field. For the 2025 document, produced by non-academics, to call for the abolition of Critical Race Theory in higher education would be like for me to call the deciding play in next year’s Super bowl as opposed to having the head coach of the actual team make that call. Having people outside of some field make decisions that have important implications for said field is, simply, bad practice. Not to mention wildly disrespectful.

Why Trump’s Reforms are Horrendous

This all said, I do agree with Bort when it comes to the points that he makes regarding why Trump’s suggested reforms to higher education are horrendous (no surprise, there I am guessing!).

In all my decades in higher education, I have never seen a situation in which a sitting US president has worked to implement orders to defund universities and other institutions of federal grants. These grants are essentially contractual. People rely on them for their livelihoods. Further, grants from entities such as the National Institute of Health tend to be vetted intensively by world-leading experts on various topics.

For the US president to try to strip a broad array of institutions in higher education of what are essentially promised (in-writing) federal monies is more than a little disappointing. It is, as various scholars at Harvard have pointed out, highly questionable in terms of its legality. And all academics should be proud of Harvard University for suing the federal government over precisely this issue.

Harvard University has produced six presidents of the United States across the centuries. This institution stands for so much of what our nation stands for in the most basic sense. Freedom of expression, inquiry, diversity, advancement of ideas, fairness, and the development of the next generation of leaders. Going after institutions of this sort is simply un-American. And, to be honest, saddening.

And this all says nothing of the clear efforts to squelch free speech that the current administration is similarly implementing at institutions of higher education across our nation. When a doctoral student from Turkey who holds a legal green card to attend Tufts University is accosted by ICE for deportation due to her expressing opinions that do not align with the current federal administration, the first amendment pretty much goes down the toilet. Does that sound American to you?

The Trump administration’s approach to higher education reform is un-American, reckless, and questionable in terms of its legality. And this is the tip of the iceberg.

Thoughtful Decision-Making about Higher Education Reform

This all said, I do not disagree with Bort that higher education is not without its problems. I could (and likely soon will) write an entire post about the many problems entrenched in US higher education (as I understand them).

But as I see it, a best practice to articulate those problems is to have people who are inside higher education working collaboratively and thoughtfully to articulate what those problems are. We don’t need a Monday Morning Quarterback who has never worked for a single day as an employee in the field of higher education to tell us what our problems are.

So like Bort (who, to be fair, did work to present his ideas in a thoughtful and balanced way—in spite of the sharp disagreements I have with much of his take), I will end this piece with my thoughts on a path forward.

A Path Forward

Twilight on the frozen lake

North wind about to break

Footprints in the snow

Silence down below (Dylan, Never Say Goodbye, 1974)

(photo credit: Tom Fisk: Pexels)

When it comes to fixing the problems of higher education in the US, the path forward is difficult to navigate—much like walking on a frozen lake at twilight. That said, at this point in history, as I see it, silence is not an option.

When thoughtful and experienced intellectuals and those with major experience as public servants, such as Robert Reich, warn us that our nation is on the verge of losing our status as a free democracy, taking heed is not an option. We all simply must take heed.

Freedom of expression is on its way out the window. Retirement accounts for millions of us have been gutted. Education, at all levels, is being disrupted at breakneck speed in a dizzying number of directions.

These are not normal times.

When it comes to higher education, sure, the system is far from perfect and improvements are needed. That said, such improvements need to be made (a) by people who actually are experts in the field and (b) they need to be made with a scalpel—gently—and not blindly with a machete.

Dans and Grove, the editors of Project 2025 (or what we might call The Ultra-Conservative Manifesto) have both gotten to their advanced positions partly due to their being highly educated within high-caliber, caring institutions of higher education in the US. Further, neither of them works in the field of higher education. For these individuals to essentially drive the ship of higher education in the US is, with all due respect, simply unacceptable.

How about this: Imagine a national-level Task Force charged with making recommendations on changes to higher education in the US—charged with creating a report that includes a reasonable timeline (e.g., Reduce administrative glut by X percent by the end of calendar year 2028). As I see it, such a task force could be created by a bipartisan congressional team.

It could include about a dozen carefully selected individuals. Such individuals could include (if I had my druthers):

• 4 highly respected academic faculty from a diversity of universities and colleges.

• 4 highly respected university presidents from across a diversity of universities and colleges in the US.

• 2 members of congress who have extensive experience regarding legislation that pertains to issues of higher education.

• And two members of the Boards of Trustees of highly effective and respected universities (maybe Harvard?).

A focus would be on representation—ensuring that members from a variety of kinds of institutions and fields would be included. Such a focus on representativeness of diverse individuals, groups, and perspectives would be wildly consistent with core and long-standing American values.

The Task Force could be charged with creating an action-oriented report with recommendations that cut across issues that surround higher education (academic freedom, federal grant projects, tuition and grants to support students, programs associated with supporting diversity of students, faculty, and administration, etc.).

I could get behind something like this. But getting behind an administration comprised of people who seem largely ungrateful to the the people at institutions of higher education who helped them to get to where they are today is just not OK with me. Especially when said individuals have little to no experience working in the field of higher education.

I wouldn’t want the president of the United States to call the final play in next year’s Super bowl. Nor do I want the president of the United States to tell the leaders in the industry that I have dedicated my life and career to—higher education—how to run our affairs.

When it comes to the Trump administration unilaterally shaping higher education in the US, on behalf of our shared future, I say no thanks. And for the reasons demarcated herein, I hope that you do too.

References

Ford CL, & Airhihenbuwa CO. Commentary: Just What is Critical Race Theory and What's it Doing in a Progressive Field like Public Health? Ethn Dis. 2018 Aug 9;28(Suppl 1):223-230. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.S1.223. PMID: 30116090; PMCID: PMC6092167.

Geher, G., & Rolon, V. (2019). Controversies Surrounding Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Wilson, G. Geher, H. Mativetsky, & A. Gallup (Eds.), Darwin’s Roadmap to the Curriculum: Evolutionary Studies in Higher Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Groves Price, P. Critical Race Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 25 Apr. 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1.

Mackiel, A., Link, J., & Geher, G. (2023). Dissecting Darwin’s Drama: Understanding the politicization of evolutionary psychology within the academy. In C. Frisby, W. O’Donohue, & & S. Lilienfeld (Eds.) Political Bias in Psychology. Springer.

Needham BL, Ali T, Allgood KL, Ro A, Hirschtick JL, Fleischer NL. Institutional Racism and Health: a Framework for Conceptualization, Measurement, and Analysis. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023 Aug;10(4):1997-2019. doi: 10.1007/s40615-022-01381-9. Epub 2022 Aug 22. PMID: 35994173; PMCID: PMC9395863.

Tourish, D. (2023). It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism and the rebirth of history. Leadership, 20(1), 9-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150231210732 (Original work published 2024)

Subscribe now

*As a guest post for Lee Jussim’s Substack, Unsafe Science

**Thanks to my wife Shannon Geher (author of the Substack The Writer’s Life) for this metaphor.

Photo credit: Pixabay /Pexels

Subscribe now

I have been teaching in higher education since I first taught Introduction to Psychology at the University of New Hampshire as a graduate student in 1994. I have witnessed extraordinary changes in the teaching/learning process—largely related to “advances” in technology related to communication and education.

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old guy, here are six ways that I have seen the teaching/learning processes adversely affected by novel technologies.

1. Generative Artificial Intelligence

Sure, the fact that we can now take 6 seconds to ask a question into our phone and get an “originally” written dissertation on pretty much any topic in the universe is, perhaps, kind of cool. But as an educator, this fact is wildly frightening. Students are famously using ChatGPT and other forms of generative AI to write college papers, master’s theses, dissertations, applications for graduate schools, love letters, and more. As someone who cares deeply about cultivating the writing and thinking processes, this landscape scares me. To no end, in fact.

While I have very strict AI policies (see my general policy here), I really am not super-optimistic that students are going to roll up their sleeves and learn how to write the old-fashioned way—by writing and re-writing, with solid feedback from experienced educators. The abilities to write and to think are famously inter-connected (see this article on the topic from Steve Mintz in Inside Higher Education). So if we educators lose the capacity and means to teach writing, thinking will fall by the wayside as collateral damage. And I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in a world in which education becomes deeply compromised because of advances in technology.

2. Internet Security

We don’t need to be convinced about the importance of internet security. By this point, nearly everyone has stories about having been hacked in some way or another. My Facebook account, for instance, that I’d cultivated and utilized for well over a decade, got hacked, compromised, and disabled. Awful situation. So I get the importance of things like double-authentication.

That said, as someone who has taught college since 1994, I have to say that internet-security issues reduce the amount of education that we can offer to our students. Let me explain:

Before the college teaching process became so dominated by computer-based processes—back in the chalk and chalkboard days—a teacher could walk into class, take attendance (by referring to a sheet of paper in a notebook), and start teaching. A 2pm class would get into the content at about 2:03.

These days, if the teacher plans to utilize technology for the teaching process at all during a class period, they have to log onto the school’s computer. This process usually includes a double-authentication process necessitating a clunky moment in which the teacher has to refer to their phone, etc. Next, they have to log into some software (e.g., a university-specific portal that has rosters and other relevant information). Once again, a double-authentication element usually comes into play. But that’s not all. The professor may have emailed themself a copy of a document to be used in today’s lecture. So they will have to log into their campus email account. And you guessed it: Yet another double-authentication.

On days that I use technology in the classroom (which, for me, is the exception and not the rule), I find that, being as efficient as I possibly can be, I don’t start actually teaching the content until about 2:10. In other words, these days, it takes about 10 minutes to just start teaching for most instructors. So students who are paying for a 75-minute class are, in effect, getting a 65-minute class. That is a 13% loss of educational time (based on the estimates included here). I have no idea what the solution to this problem is, but it is, without question, a problem that adversely affects students’ education—due to advances in technology.

3. The Internet’s Extraordinary Reach.

The internet is pretty amazing. We now live in a world in which (with little exaggeration) any person can ask a question anywhere about any topic and get an elaborate and often-accurate answer in the blink of an eye. Sure, this is pretty cool. That said, I have seen the internet’s highly accessible nature adversely affect student learning—especially when it comes to the development of writing.

On one occasion—going back about 10 years now—I had a very bright, advanced student go over a paper with me. When I asked her about the process that she’d used to organize the structure of the paper, she explained that she found a published article online that was related to the topic. And she copied and pasted sections of that article into a Word document and changed words around.

I was horrified. And she was surprised. She explained to me that, in her words, this is what everyone does. Wow, did I not like to hear that. I explained to her that this process was fully unacceptable and worked against her own development and education. I am not sure, to this day, if she actually took my guidance on this issue.

The internet can be great for educational purposes—but there is a dark side—it makes plagiarism way too tempting and way too easy.

What the student in the example included here was doing counts as what we call turn-of-phrase plagiarism—which exists when you take someone else’s prose and simply change things around a bit (such as changing the word “enormous” to “tremendous”). I have definitely seen an increase in turn-of-phrase plagiarism over the years. It works so much against a students’ educational goals—and the internet, unwittingly, makes this kind of “writing” all too easy.

4. Cell Phones

Cell phones are, simply put, wildly distracting. And they are too tempting. Checking texts when one receives a notification is like an addiction at this point. And social media is famously addicting as well. Further, when students use cell phones in class, the instructor is likely to get distracted—at least I know that I do. I like to think that my class is like a high-level conversation between myself and each student. And if you’re in a conversation with someone and they are looking at their phone and clearly ignoring you, you’re going to have a hard time not being distracted.

We’re at a point in the world where expecting all students to turn their phones off fully is, as I’ve found, not even really an option. Efforts to implement that kind of policy leads to all kinds of requests for exceptions—often legitimate requests, such as saying that they need to be on call to check on a family member’s health status.

My particular policy is that if a student must use their cell phone—at all—they need to go into the hallway as, at least for me, that is much less distracting than is a student on their phone, clearly ignoring you and their classmates, during class time. Cell phones are not friends with the process of classroom teaching.

5. Laptops

Laptop computers are becoming more and more common. And many students take notes using laptops these days. And while actually writing notes the old-fashioned way has been shown to lead to better recall of information relative to taking notes on a laptop or similar device (see Desselle et al., 2018), taking notes on laptops seems to be emerging as more and more normative each year.

For me, the main problem associated with laptops in the classroom, however, is the distraction factor. If a student has access to the internet during class, good luck having them pay undivided attention to your lecture.

To this point, consider the following anecdote: A few years ago, I was asked by a junior colleague to observe their class and to write a review of the class. Of course I was happy to comply. I have to say, I was surprised when I settled into my seat at the back of the classroom, that more than half the students had laptops open during the entire class. Given that I sat at the back of the class, I was able to see everyone’s screen. And I kid you not: 100% of the students on laptops hopped onto social media or Amazon—or something else completely unrelated to the class—at least once. In many cases, students pretty much just surfed the internet the entire time. Heck, I found myself checking my Facebook during the class—not proud to admit that, by the way!

The way that I deal with this issue is to disallow students to use laptops—and if a student wants or needs an exception for some reason (often related to software that they rely on related to a disability, for example), I have the student meet with me to discuss the issue. And then I have them state in writing that they will have their device on airplane mode any time that they have their device in operation. Generally, this approach has worked alright for me. But again, it’s just another example of how technological advances adversely affect modern higher education.

6. The PowerPoint Doldrums

When I was a college student in the dark ages, most professors wrote notes on the board. Projector technology was sort of coming into its own and was rarely used. I felt that I learned well from professors writing notes on the board—my writing notes along with the professors’ writing tended to make for an active learning process.

At some point, PowerPoint and similar presentation-based technologies became available. I will say that these softwares do have a time and a place. But over-reliance on PowerPoint is often something that makes for a highly passive educational experience. On more than one occasion, I’ve heard students complain about over-use of PowerPoints for notes from other professors.

And so here’s an anecdote on this issue: Several years ago, a junior colleague asked me to review their class. The course dealt with relatively technical information. And it started at 8am. Uggh! But of course I said yes.

I walked into the classroom and sat in the back, ready to take notes as part of the observation. Once the room was full, the professor turned on the computer and the projector and proceeded to turn off the lights so that the PowerPoint slides could be most visible.

I noticed during the lecture that the student next to me fell asleep. And the student in front of that student fell asleep. And for about 2 seconds (I think!), I even fell asleep! (not proud of this, by the way!)

When I later talked with the professor to provide feedback, they enthusiastically reported that all the PowerPoint slides were provided by the textbook publisher. This professor was essentially bragging that they didn’t have to really do anything to prepare for the class—and didn’t bring a bit of their own content or experience into the teaching of the course. Of course, I was horrified. When I mentioned that some of the students seemed disengaged by the heavy usage of PowerPoint and suggested some alternative options for delivering content, this professor smiled with an implication that they were teaching the way that they had been encouraged to teach and that they weren’t really planning to change a thing. So it goes.

Perhaps using a mix of content-delivery methods (including some PowerPoint (with some light on in the room!) along with writing on the board, in-class structured discussions, etc., might be a better way to go.

Bottom Line

Technological advances related to communication and education have been moving at breakneck speed. While game-changing technologies, such as generative AI, seem nothing short of extraordinary at first, to my mind, educators need to be cautious about endorsing such novel technologies without much in the way of deliberation.

While all the technologies listed above have their place and have the capacity to make things easier for us in some ways, from my experience as a professor for the past 30+ years, I have to say that there are education-related downsides to advanced technology.

My recommendation to up-and-coming teachers, thus, would be this: When it comes to technology in the classroom, ask yourself if the technology, on average, advances the goals of teaching and learning or if it impedes said goals. Questioning the utility of incorporating technology into the classroom can go a long way to making for stronger teachers and more engaged students.

Subscribe now

References

Desselle SP, Shane PA. Laptop Versus Longhand Note Taking in a Professional Doctorate Course: Student Performance, Attitudes, and Behaviors. Innov Pharm. 2018 Nov 5;9(3):1-12. doi: 10.24926/iip.v9i3.1392. PMID: 34007708; PMCID: PMC6302751.

Photo Credit: Vera Arsic / Pexels

Relationships are famously complex and are often difficult. Finding someone who not only is attractive to you but who also shares interests, values, and long-term visions of the future is one thing. But finding someone who truly loves you and whom you truly love is something different altogether.

Subscribe now

In many ways, intimate relationships are primarily emotional in nature. If you find someone who “checks the boxes” but who doesn’t really love you—in a deep emotional sense—or is someone whom you don’t really love, you may do yourself a huge favor by reconsidering that particular relationship. Your future self will likely thank you for not settling. This all is especially true in cases in which your partner actually loves (or at least has strong feelings for) someone else (see Geher et al., 2005).

As an example, imagine this scenario:

Joe is excited to be with Brittany. She is kind, fun, smart, and has a great personality. He's highly attracted to her on every front.

At some point, Brittany had given Joe the vibe that she'd had a very hard breakup before the two of them met—she even implied that she had strong feelings for this other guy. The other guy, it turned out, lived over 1,000 miles away and, by the time that Joe and Brittany started to date, he was, based on what Joe could gather from social media, happily married to someone else. Joe never gave this other guy a second thought. That turned out not to be the case for Brittany, who secretly longed for this other guy for years.

When One Person in a Relationship is the Other's "Second Potato," Disaster May Lurk

In a study conducted by my research team several years ago (Geher et al., 2005), we asked people who identified as being in long-term relationships to describe, across various features, how they felt about their current romantic partner as well as how they felt about their most recent former romantic partners.

Our findings have important implications for satisfaction and success in long-term relationships.

First off, in a sample of over 150 adults who were both (a) currently in long-term relationships and (b) had at least one prior long-term relationship, the large majority of participants described their current partners as, across all kinds of features, better than their exes.

In this study, we also measured relationship satisfaction. The results were somewhat eye-opening. The biggest predictor of low levels of relationship satisfaction pertained to the following constellation: One partner saw their most recent former romantic partner in more positive terms than was the case for how they saw their current partners.

In short, people who reported more liking of their past romantic partner than their current romantic partner had extremely low levels of relationship satisfaction.

In a second study on this topic, we found that this effect was actually obtained at the psychophysiological level as well. Just thinking about one's most recent former romantic partner positively seemed to activate participants' fight-or-flight response across several physiological indices.

When one member of a relationship sees their most recent former partner more positively than how they see their current partner, they are probably looking at a recipe for relationship failure. And such a set of perceptions may well cause stress in terms of the autonomic nervous system (the system that oversees the fight-or-flight response).

Adverse Outcomes Associated with Relationship Dissatisfaction

Decades of research on predictors of relationship satisfaction have found a broad array of adverse personal, relational, and even societal problems associated with low levels of satisfaction in a relationship. Relationship dissatisfaction has been found to:

• Be a major predictor of infidelity (see Rokeach & Chan, 2023: which has been shown to often go along with such adverse outcomes as relational aggression and even homicide (see Horder, 2015)).

• Predict low self-esteem for both members of the relationship (see Richter & Finn, 2021).

• Serve as a major predictor of relational conflict (see Richter & Finn, 2021).

• Correspond to feelings of inequity in relationships (when one partner feels under-benefited and sees the other partner as over-benefited in the relationship; Sprecher, 2018).

And more. Relationship satisfaction on the part of one member of a relationship is simply a recipe for all kinds of adverse outcomes.

Bottom Line

Intimate relationships are, to make an understatement, tricky. It would be ideal if, in relationships, it were always the case that both parties loved one another equally. Further, it would be great if, in any given relationship, each partner was the other partner's #1 potato.

As we found in our research on perceptions of current and past romantic partners (Geher et al., 2005), these idealized outcomes are not always the case. Further, when one partner sees the other partner as their "second potato," the relationship may well be on shaky footing. Such a state may lead to low relationship satisfaction, relationship conflict, perceptions of inequity in the relationship, infidelity, and, quite possibly, relationship dissolution.

As discussed by major researchers on the evolutionary origins of mating and intimate relationships (e.g., Buss, 2017), choosing a long-term relationship partner has been (and continues to be) one of the most important decisions that people have made across the evolutionary history of humans.

One clear implication of these ideas, in combination, is this: If you sense that you are likely to be someone's second potato, perhaps bide your time and look around a bit more. You have every right to wait for a relationship in which you and the other genuinely see one another as each other's first potato. With reincarnation being unlikely, remember that you will not have endless opportunities to make this evolutionarily critical decision.

Don't settle for being someone's second potato. In addition to the problems with such a scenario demarcated above, always remember this: You're better than that.

Subscribe now

References

Buss, D. M. (2017). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Revised edition). New York: Basic Books.

Geher, G., Bloodworth, R., Mason, J, Stoaks, C., Downey, H.J., Renstrom, K.L., & Romero, J.F. Motivational Underpinnings of Romantic Partner Perceptions: Psychological and Physiological Evidence (2005). Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 22, 255-281.

Richter J, Finn C. Transactions between self-esteem and perceived conflict in romantic relationships: A 5-year longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 12;16(4):e0248620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248620. PMID: 33844689; PMCID: PMC8041199.

Rokach A, Chan SH. Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 22;20(5):3904. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20053904. PMID: 36900915; PMCID: PMC10002055.

Subscribe now

Note that this piece is adapted from a piece that I originally posted for Psychology Today. I own the copyright to the material.

Photo credit: Tim4403224246/Wikimedia Commons

As a college professor for more than a quarter of a century, I wouldn’t say that I’ve seen it all. But I would say that I’ve seen a lot.

One thing that you become keen to as a college professor pertains to factors that predict student success. Based on my experience in the field—which served as the basis of my book Own Your Psychology Major!—I can say confidently that, all things equal, following the simple guidance here sets up a pathway for success in college. And these simple lessons extend well beyond the collegiate experience.

1. Register early for your classes. Like most full-time college professors, part of my work includes academic advising. At any given time, I have dozens and dozens of Psychology and Evolutionary Studies advisees. As is common at most schools, each student is required to meet with their advisor during a particular window of time for help in choosing classes for the next term—and, often, for help in figuring out what kind of academic and career-related future is best for them.

From this backdrop, I’ll tell you this: The first student who meets with me during what we often refer to as advising season is nearly always sharp as a tack. Students who show up early to sign up for classes show a diligence and care that, in combination, go a long way. During the process, I usually will check out the student’s GPA. And I am never surprised when the very-first student or two who show up for advising have GPAs that approach a perfect 4.0. These young people who take steps to be at the front of the line, more-often-than-not, simply have their stuff together. And this fact pays dividends. And this general approach will certainly have benefits in the world that await them after graduation.

Implication: Register for your classes early!

2. Sit at the front of the class. While students who do well academically are often spread out across a typical classroom, students who choose to sit at the front of the class naturally end up being more engaged with the material. They are right there. They don’t really have the option to check their Snapchat or to zone out. In my experience, students who go out of their way to solidify a front-row seat tend to, on average, excel academically.

Implication: Sit at the front of the class!

3. Strive for perfect attendance. While perfect attendance may not always be feasible, attendance in and of itself has demonstrated to be an extraordinarily strong predictor of academic success (see Keppens, 2023). Study after study has found that simply showing up to one’s classes is both substantial and significant in its effects on academic performance. So while I may have a “you’re a big kid” attendance policy for my classes (Attendance is fully optional. Note that attending will likely help your grade), I do make it clear to students that attending class is in their interest. And a mountain of research has found that attendance rates are often found as better predictors of academic performance than are things like SAT scores and high school GPA.

Implication: Go to class!

4. Study actively and extensively. In a recent keynote address for the New England Psychological Association, cognitive psychologist Matthew Brubaker (2024) discussed various implications for succeeding as a student based on research in the cognitive sciences. As I’ve noticed extensively over the years, according to Brubaker, students who study in an active manner (e.g., writing out flash cards or writing out notes based on the notes that they took in class) tend to excel. On the flip side, passive studying (e.g., reading and then re-reading the notes or textbook) simply doesn’t lead to the same kind of active practice that builds a strong understanding of the material at hand.

Further, the amount of time that one studies for an exam is strongly predictive of success. On multiple occasions over the years, I’ve had students come to my office to discuss a poor exam grade—asking for help to improve things for the next exam. One of my main questions for these students is simply this: How many hours did you study? It is eye-opening how students differentially define the phrase a lot. Students often will say that they studied for about 2-3 hours, claiming that this amount is “a lot.”

I will tell you, while I was hardly the perfect student in my time, I was (ultimately…) not bad—and, at the end of the day, I worked extremely hard for my classes. I recall at some point (after starting out with a few questionable semesters…) realizing that, for me at least, the magic number was 15. If I studied for 15 or more hours for an exam, I would nearly always ace it.

Sometimes when I recommend to students that they should study for at least 15 hours per exam, they look at me like I’m a three-headed anomaly of nature. On the other hand, students who report studying about that much for an individual exam regularly emerge at the head of the class, so to speak. The positive correlation between time spent studying and academic performance is unquestionable.

Implication: Study actively and study a lot.

5. Visit your professors during office hours. Students don’t always realize it when they go into college, but a professor’s job includes all kinds of things beyond teaching in the classroom. One of the required elements of college teaching is to hold office hours. These are hours outside of class time that are largely for the purpose of helping students understand and connect with the material in what are essentially individualized tutoring sessions with the professor. Take advantage of these hours—see office hours as an opportunity and as a way to help optimize your education. During office hours, you can ask questions about content that is not fully clear to you. Or you can ask the professor larger-scale questions, such as how they became interested in this subject in the first place. Or you can ask them questions about how the content might be applicable in your future career path (e.g., I’m often asked by pre-health-studies students: How is evolutionary psychology relevant to better understanding issues of human health?). Or more. Not only do office hours provide extra learning opportunities, but they also help to foster deeper relationships between students and professors. Getting to know your professors at a deeper level may well lead to a scenario where, if needed, your professor’s got your back.

Implication: Take advantage of professors’ office hours.

Bottom Line

College is not always easy. As a college student, you have to navigate abstract and often technical content. You need to figure out the different styles and systems of dozens of professors—styles and systems that often vary dramatically from one another. You will probably have hundreds of assessments of your work related to dozens of often-advanced and complex topics. This all is why succeeding in college is so-often seen as a badge of honor.

Want to succeed in your college experience? Follow the five simple rules described herein. While there are no guarantees in life, I can promise you this: Following these rules will give you a leg up in what may well be a treacherous sea—the academic sea of ideas, books, and calculations. A sea that is designed to set you up for success in the real world—which, I can tell you from experience, is not always a picnic.

Any time you have an opportunity to get a leg up for your future, take it. You’ll need it. College is designed exactly to help provide you with opportunities to set you up for success. Succeed in your college years and, odds are, in so many ways, that you’ll succeed well into your future.

Subscribe now

References

Brubaker, M. (2024). Presidential Keynote Address. New England Psychological Association Convention. Springfield, MA.

Geher, G. (2019). Own Your Psychology Major! A Guide to Student Success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Keppens, G. (2023). School absenteeism and academic achievement: Does the timing of the absence matter? Learning and Instruction, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101769.

photo credit: Pexels/Pixabay

Have you ever seen a relationship in which one partner is discouraged from "being themselves?" Maybe there's a friend of yours who has always been quite silly but who, around his partner, suddenly becomes highly serious. Or maybe you know someone who has huge wanderlust and has traveled to all kinds of places in her life, only to marry someone who has no interest in travel and who really just stifles this part of her being. Or maybe you know someone who was just born to play the piano but whose partner discourages "that noise" pretty resoundingly?

These are all instances in which there is something of a mismatch between two partners—a mismatch that effectively stifles the "authentic self" of at least one of the partners (and perhaps both).

The Authentic Self Versus the Stressed Self

In a groundbreaking attempt to understand the human experience using an evolutionary framework, the late-great Psychology Today blogger and neuroscientist, John Montgomery (along with his collaborator Todd Ritchey) developed a model of the self that frames the self as oscillating between one's authentic self (who a person is when they are most comfortable with who they are and what they are doing) and one's stressed self, which emerges when one is under a state of stress. When one's stressed self takes over, all kinds of things become more difficult (see Montgomery & Ritchey, 2010). People become agitated, unhappy, angry, anxious, distracted, forgetful, distrustful, and more. Going back for decades, in fact, behavioral scientists have documented a broad array of adverse psychological and physiological consequences associated with stress. A simple implication of all these ideas is as follows: In all spheres of life, try to create environments and conditions that foster your authentic self and that downplay your stressed self.

Finding a Partner That Cultivates Your Authentic Self

While not everyone is interested in settling down with a romantic partner, it is the case that dyadic intimate relationships are quite common. According to these data presented by Statista, a majority of adults in the US will get married at some point in life. 

Marriage, of course, for a broad array of reasons, is not to be entered into lightly. Selecting a marriage partner is, in so many ways, one of the most important decisions that one might make in life. Choosing someone who is mismatched from yourself may well end up leading to heartache and all kinds of problems (see Geher & Kaufman, 2013). 

While there are clearly many factors to look for in a long-term mating partner, one that is often-overlooked, based on the work of Montgomery and Ritchey (2010) pertains to being with someone around whom you can be yourself—with whom you feel comfortable. If you find someone who checks all the other boxes but whose presence inhibits your ability to really be your true, authentic self (e.g., you like to be silly and this other person cannot stand that), then you are setting yourself up for stress—particularly given this idea that the counterpoint to one's authentic self is one's stressed self. And if you are with someone whose attitude toward important aspects of your authentic self ends up bringing out your stressed self, in short, you're just not going to be happy. People do best when they are unstressed and are comfortable expressing their authentic selves. The implications for mate-selection are profound. 

Red Flags Regarding Whether Your Authentic Self is Appreciated in Your Relationship

In thinking about the importance of being able to be one’s authentic self in one’s relationship, here are some red flags that might be useful in assessing one’s relationship on this point.

• The presence alone of your partner seems to put you in a state of stress of some degree.

• Your partner is disagreeable with you—rejecting your ideas, whatever the context (e.g., ideas of a restaurant to have dinner at, whether some political leader is doing a good job, whether you should vacation at this place or that place, etc.). If your partner disagrees with you a lot, then they are signaling, in a sense, that they are not really caring about your authentic self. And this can be stressful in a relationship.

• Your partner asks you to stop doing something that you love doing. This might be playing piano “too loud—can you please stop!” Or watching your favorite sport team that you identify as part of your own self in some way (“It’s just a game. Who cares!?”).

• Your partner discourages you from taking initiatives that would feed your authentic self (e.g., “we don’t need to pay for an adult to take dance lessons once a week! And honestly, I’d have zero interest in joining you.”)

• Hearing regularly that your partner “doesn’t like when you do that.” Imagine that you love singing in the shower—as if it is your own private Madison Square Garden. And your partner, upon hearing your “concerts,: comments that they’d rather you not do that.

In a sense, any comments or actions that stifle you from being the person you really are or who you really strive to be, can be seen as red flags in a relationship. Because once one of the partners in a relationship feels that their authentic self is being squashed, resentment, self-esteem issues, and a host of other outcomes that are famously associated with relationship problems are likely to—perhaps unwittingly—emerge.

Green Flags Regarding Whether Your Authentic Self is Appreciated in Your Relationship

But there is good news! There are certainly relationships in which partners naturally tend to cultivate the authentic selves of one another. So while all the red flags described above might suggest that a relationship is not headed in a great direction, the below green flags all likely signal exactly the opposite.

• You feel positive emotions when your partner returns after a separation (even a trip to the grocery store); you tend to rarely experience stress upon just seeing your partner return after a separation.

• Your partner seems to really know and appreciate your authentic self. You might be someone who works a little too hard and who cares a little too much in certain spheres of life. But that’s just who you authentically are. So imagine that your partner seems to understand that these are simply defining features of who you are and not only accepts them, but supports them.

• Your partner regularly reinforces your authentic self in various ways. My wife knows that I love long-distance running and she encouraged (against all of my fiscal instincts!) to buy the top of the line Hokas recently, for instance—that felt like love to me. Your partner might also create art or poetry that celebrates features of your authentic self. Your partner may buy you simple, small gifts—even from Instacart—to surprise you with items that totally speak to your authentic self.

• Your partner shows an open-mindedness and works to join you in cultivating your authentic self. If you love to dance and your partner has two left feet, wouldn’t it be great if that partner saw your love of dance as a core part of your authentic self and signed you both up for dance lessons?

Thinking about positive relationship outcomes in terms of whether one’s partner is cultivating one’s authentic self can actually be very helpful in getting people to appreciate their partners and their relationships more broadly and deeply.

Bottom Line

When people use the phrase "be yourself," this phrase actually has meaning. Generally, they mean "be your authentic self"—roughly corresponding to the person you enjoy being and the person whom you feel that you are meant to be. 

If you are choosing a long-term mate, assessing whether they help cultivate your authentic self or not can make all the difference in terms of how that relationship plays out over time. Forming a long-term partnership with someone who truly embraces your authentic self is simply a key to a successful relationship future—especially if this process is reciprocated.

Want a happy relationship? Seek out someone who loves your authentic self—as imperfect as it may be. 

Note: This is an elaborate version of a piece that I published with Psychology Today; I own the copy​right to the content.

Subscribe now

References

Geher, G., & Kaufman, S.B. (2013), Mating intelligence unleashed: The role of the mind in sex, dating, and love. Oxford University Press.

Montgomery, J., & Ritchey, T. (2010). The Answer Model: A New Path to Healing. TAM Books.

Dedication: This post would not be possible without the support and input from my wife Shannon. Conversations on the issues described here played a major role in the writing of this piece. And she makes me smile!

• When agriculture emerged about 10,000 years ago, people were able to settle in one place; this is when "civilization" emerged.

• The term "civilized" has come to connote some group of people who are relatively "advanced" in some important ways relative to others.

• The concept of "evolutionary mismatch" forces us to re-examine just how "advanced" our "civilized societies" truly are.

photo credit: Pexels / Pixabay

Let’s start with this: I don’t like, at all, the term “civilization”—for various reasons. Partly, this term seems to inherently connote a degree of arrogance. As if the world is divided into “the civilized people” and “the uncivilized people.” As a dyed-in-the-wool egalitarianist, I have to say that this concept just rubs me the wrong way. And as an evolutionary behavioral scientist, it rubs me the wrong way for a bunch of scientifically justifiable reasons.

We often think of the modern, "civilized" world as being somehow luxurious and advanced relative to how most people lived thousands of years ago. And some people will often think of others who are "in the third world" or who currently live in nomadic bands, just as our ancestors all did prior to the agricultural revolution, as "less than civilized," which has all kinds of negative connotations. 

The evolutionary perspective in the behavioral sciences forces us to truly question this conception of civilization. In the same breath, the evolutionary perspective forces us to question so many features of our own lives today. 

The Agricultural Revolution and Civilization

Prior to the advent of agriculture, all of our human ancestors were nomads, living in small bands that were typically comprised of no more than about 150 others, most of whom included blood relatives (kin) and/or others who were all quite familiar to one another. They only ate natural foods. And exercise was a daily occurrence, like it or not (see Geher, 2014).

The agricultural revolution changed all that. Once people became able to cultivate and raise food on their own, they had the option to create farms and, ultimately, to stay put. In this context, small villages, followed ultimately by large cities, emerged. 

People started to specialize in work that was not fully dedicated to finding food for the day. Life changed in all kinds of ways. At the drop of a hat. And the result is often referred to as civilization.

While civilization has all kinds of perks, one thing that our early-agricultural ancestors did not take into account was our evolved psychology, which, in many ways, was shaped for nomadic, small-scale living over eons of evolutionary time (see Geher & Wedberg, 2020). In short, our early-agricultural ancestors did not understand the concept of evolutionary mismatch, which speaks to situations in which an organism is living in a current environment that is dramatically mismatched from the conditions that surrounded the evolution of the ancestors of that organism. And much of what we know about evolutionary mismatch in the modern human experience speaks to a variety of problems that plague our modern lives to this day (see Giphart & Van Vugt, 2018). 

In other words, in many ways, maybe nomads across the globe today, who, in certain circles, get tagged with the negative term of "uncivilized," actually have it right. Below are five ways that this, in fact, may be the case. 

5 Ways that the Nomads Probably Have it Right

1. Face-to-face communication truly is best.

In a famous body of research in social psychology, Phil Zimbardo documented, in detail, the fact that anonymous communication seems to breed all kinds of anti-social behavior (Zimbardo, 2007). In nomadic groups around the world today, there is a high proportion of daily communication that is actually of the face-to-face variety. In the "civilized" world, most of our communication these days is done through screens, often in anonymous ways. And this fact is, actually, deeply problematic. 

2. Life with social media and the internet is not all peaches and cream.

According to this detailed report by Comparitech, cyberbullying, and all of the unpleasantries that go along with it, such as major mental health problems among adolescents and young adults, has been on the rise over the past several years, with a curve that eerily parallels curves associated with social media usage among members of this same demographic (see Twenge et al., 2019). While our "smart" phones may seem super advanced in so many ways, given that they are the primary conduits for social media, it is clear that there are adverse social and psychological outcomes associated with the rise of cell phone technology in the "civilized" world. And these effects are nothing short of staggering. 

3. Loneliness seems to be a consequence of large-scale living.

An ironic finding in the research on loneliness is this: Loneliness rates tend to be higher in relatively large, densely populated cities relative to comparable rates in smaller-scale societies (see Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018). This fact, which adversely affects so many of us on a daily basis, provides further evidence that our "civilized" lives may not be all that they are cracked up to be. 

4. Rates of mental health problems increase with markers of population density. 

On this same theme, it is noteworthy that mental health problems seem to be significantly more prevalent in large, "civilized" societies than in small-scale communities (Srivastava, 2009). And this finding seems to be relatively general across geographical locations. Living in large-scale societies corresponds to an increased risk of mental health problems—and this is true across the globe. 

5. Nomads had ample physical activity and only natural diets.

Obesity and other outcomes associated with low levels of physical exercise and relatively high intake of processed foods in one's diet are, without questions, problems of the "civilized world." These outcomes correspond to all kinds of adverse health outcomes such as Type-II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, immunological problems, and more. Our modern, sedentary lifestyles may be a mark of "civilization," but they also are deeply mismatched from the environments that our bodies evolved to exist in. And our health is suffering as a consequence. 

Bottom Line

Look, although I wish it weren't true, I am as connected to my cell phone as you are to yours. I am a product of the modern, industrialized world and I hardly have plans to leave everything behind and join a nomadic group in another part of the world. That said, as an evolutionist with a deep concern for the human condition, I think that it is important for people in all industries to understand the nature of evolutionary mismatch as it relates to such things as technology, social media, food, exercise, education, and more. When you start thinking carefully about the issue of evolutionary mismatch, you start to see it in all spheres of life.

Understanding the concept of evolutionary mismatch along with how this relates to our modern worlds can go a long way toward helping people lead healthier and richer lives. 

For the lion's share of human evolutionary history, our ancestors were nomads who lived in small groups, exercised daily, communicated only in face-to-face fashion, and only ate natural foods. These are hallmarks of the environments that our bodies and minds were shaped for across evolutionary time. Keeping these facts in mind can help us lead richer lives today.

Subscribe now

References

Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2018). The growing problem of loneliness. Lancet, 391(10119), 426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30142-9

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.

Geher, G. & Wedberg, N. (2020). Positive Evolutionary Psychology: Darwin’s Guide to Living a Richer Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Giphart, R. & Van Vugt, M. (2018). Mismatch. Robinson.

Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005-2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128, 185-199.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil,” The Journal of The American Medical Association. 298 (11): 1338–1340.

Note: This piece was adapted from a post I wrote for Psychology Today. I own the copyright to this work.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

In 2012, after being home to various classes of primates for more than 100 years, the renowned Monkey House at the Bronx Zoo closed down. The zoo's current primate inhabitants reside in spaces designed to match their natural habitats. The shift is part of a broader movement in zoos around the world, based on the highly reasonable idea that all species have evolved to fit particular environmental conditions. Such features that typify an organism's ancestral conditions characterize its Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness or EEA (Bowlby, 1969). Housing a monkey, whose ancestors go millions of years deep into specific African jungle environments, in a small cage in the zoo of a large city was simply evolutionarily misguided—and arguably cruel.

Animals essentially need to have many key features of their ancestral environments in their current conditions—because their bodies and minds are the result of evolutionary processes that took place under these specific conditions. In an evolutionarily novel and unnatural environment, solid research shows that various primates will demonstrate signs of physiological and psychological stress (see Harlow & Suomi, 1971).

This idea, which we often refer to as evolutionary mismatch, critically relates to the nature of being human in modern times. If you live in a modern, Westernized part of the world—as you almost certainly do if you’re reading this—then you are, in many ways, metaphorically living in a cage in a zoo. And the physical, emotional, and social fallout of this fact may well be doing all kinds of damage that you have never even thought about.

A key principle of evolutionary psychology (see Geher, 2014) is the notion that modern humans in Westernized societies experience important instances of evolutionary mismatch. Understanding this is essential in understanding much of what it means to be human today.

Here is a list of 10 ways that modern, Westernized humans like you and me are, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, living “in the Monkey House”:

10. You are surrounded in your day-to-day life by a higher proportion of strangers than would ever have been true of our pre-agrarian hominid ancestors.

9. You run into a higher total number of people each day than our pre-agrarian hominid ancestors ever would have.

8. You have the option of spending 90 percent of your waking hours sitting at a desk—and you often exercise this option.

7. Your extended family includes people dispersed across hundreds or thousands of miles (think New York and Florida).

6. You have been exposed to more images of violence than ever would have been possible for pre-agrarian hominids.

5. You were likely educated in an age-stratified system—spending each of several years in a group comprised of about 25 others who matched you in age—being taught in a classroom environment by a few specially designated “teachers.” You likely spent a lot of time sitting behind desks in the process.

4. You are exposed regularly to politics at a global scale—often discussing or being involved in issues that potentially pertain to thousands, millions, or even billions of other humans.

3. You were raised in some variant of a nuclear family—with less assistance from aunts, uncles, older cousins, and grandparents, than would have been typical of our nomadic ancestors.

2. You spend a great deal of time interacting with “screens” and “devices”—having the evolutionarily unprecedented possibility of almost never having to be bored at all.

1. You can eat an entire diet of processed foods—and you live in a world in which processed foods are cheaper and more accessible than natural foods.

This list is certainly incomplete and, at best, preliminary—there are undoubtedly many other worthy contenders. That said, I’m hopeful that the list can help open the eyes of those interested in human psychology to the importance of evolutionary mismatch in understanding all aspects of who we are.

Welcome to the Monkey House.

Subscribe now

References:

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer. 

Harlow, H.F., & Suomi, S. J. (1971). Social Recovery by Isolation-Reared Monkeys, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America,  68,1534-1538.

Vonnegut, K. (1968). Welcome to the Monkey House. New York: Delacorte Press.

Note: Variants of this post are cross-posted at evostudies.org and at Psychology Today.

Note: The title of this post comes from the title of Vonnegut’s book by the same name.

Subscribe now

cvpericias/Pixaby

Subscribe now

​When I went to college to major in psychology at the University of Connecticut in 1988, I was pretty naïve. I thought that this degree led to a career as a "psychologist" and I thought that "psychologist" was synonymous with "therapist." 

Boy was I wrong! It turned out that the field of psychology was enormous and had just as many areas that focus on pure research in the behavioral sciences as there are areas that relate to therapy at all. In fact, at the end of the day, I ended up going a route that was purely research-based, getting a degree in experimental psychology (with a focus on social and personality psychology) that led to a career as a researcher and teacher at the university level. Eighteen-year-old Glenn had no idea that this all was even a thing!

In my work as a university professor, I take my role in advising students very seriously. In fact, I even wrote a book, Own Your Psychology Major! A Guide to Student Success, designed to help students know the things about the field that I only wish I had known when I was a psych major back in the day. 

2 Common Misconceptions about Becoming a Therapist

When I ask psychology students what they want to be when they grow up, a good number of them, just like 18-year-old Glenn, simply say that they "want to be a psychologist." And, also just like 18-year-old Glenn, they all seem to think that the words "psychologist" and "therapist" are synonymous. I'd say that this is probably the most common misconception about becoming a therapist: Students often conflate the concepts of "psychologist" and "therapist."

A second common misconception about becoming a therapist pertains to the fact that students often don't realize that there are multiple paths toward careers related to therapy. Often, I'll hear students say that they not only want to be a psychologist, but also that they think that they need to get a doctoral degree in psychology in order to do so. In fact, if a student actually wants a career as a therapist, there are multiple master-degree-level paths that quite effectively lead toward this goal. Students are often surprised to learn this. 

6 Paths Toward a Career as a Therapist

As addressed in my book, there are more than five different paths toward careers in therapy! But here are five of the most common paths that lead to such careers.

1. Mental Health Counselor (Master's Degree Required): Degrees in mental health counseling are offered broadly at both state and private universities. These degrees, which usually take about 2-3 years to complete, typically will lead to state licensure to practice therapy and they provide students with intensive coursework and internship experience in a broad array of issues surrounding mental health and therapy. Mental health counselors have many job opportunities these days and they work for a broad array of public and private organizations. 

2. Clinical Social Worker (Master's Degree Required): Degrees in clinical social work are often offered as part of an MSW program. These degrees, which usually take about 2-3 years to complete, are offered across the U.S. at various private and public universities and they usually lead to state licensure to practice as a therapist. Licensed clinical social workers, often with undergraduate backgrounds in either psychology or sociology, practice for various public and private organizations, and the job market these days is generally quite strong in this field. 

3. Clinical Psychologist (Doctoral Degree Required): Clinical psychologists have doctoral degrees and intensive training in mental health and therapeutic practices. Ph.D. programs in this field include intensive research-based work along with extensive internships. Psy.D. programs, which are also doctoral degrees, tend to focus more strictly on practice rather than research.

These degrees, which generally take about five years to complete, typically lead to state licensure and often lead to a more diverse set of opportunities compared with degrees at the master's level. These degrees are offered typically at relatively large public and private universities. Clinical psychologists with PhDs (but typically not those with PsyDs) are also well-positioned for full-time academic careers as faculty in psychology and related departments at colleges and universities.  

4. Psychiatrist (M.D. Required): Psychiatrists, who typically hold M.D. degrees, receive intensive training in both the psychopharmaceutical approach to dealing with mental health issues as well as additional therapeutic techniques. Psychiatrists, whose degrees generally lead to state licensure, are able to prescribe psychopharmaceuticals in their therapeutic approaches. They vary in terms of how much they offer additional kinds of therapy such as classic forms of talk therapy, which may be offered in combination with psychopharmaceutical treatment. Training in this area is intensive, typically including at least five years of medical school as well as intensive residencies. 

5. Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (Master's Degree Required): Psychiatric nurse practitioner degrees are offered at various public and private universities. These degrees are degrees in nursing and include the intensive coursework and internship experiences that are found in nursing degree programs in general. These degrees typically take about three years to complete and they require all the pre-requisite course work for admission that is found in master-level nursing programs across the board. This degree usually can lead to state licensure. Further, the therapeutic offerings in this field allow for the prescribing of psychopharmaceuticals as well as various other forms of psychotherapy. 

6. School Psychologist (Master’s Degree Required): School psychology is an important field in this day and age. And graduate programs in this field are relatively prevalent across the US. Note that many people who receive this degree have a hard time finding actual jobs in school districts as the positions tend to be highly competitive. That said, in most states, people with school psychology degrees are (usually with some special requirements regarding internship hours, licensing exams, etc.) typically eligible to become licensed therapists—making this particular degree relatively versatile.

Importantly, note that there are several other kinds of degrees and paths that lead to careers that connect with therapy. Such other degrees relate to fields such as applied behavior analysis, counseling psychology, and school counseling, to name a few. 

The Future of the Field

These days, the mental health industry is growing. On one hand, this is problematic and a bit sad because it speaks to a growing rate of mental health problems, especially in industrialized nations such as the US (see Strivastava, 2009). This said, this trend also means that there are lots of career options in the field of mental health. So there are lots of opportunities for psychology majors to make a positive difference as they advance in their careers. 

To work in a career that includes therapy, you don't necessarily need a doctoral degree. And you don't necessarily need a degree that is formally in the field of "psychology"—in fact, students usually find that there are more career options on this front than they tend to realize. 

Hopefully, this post has been helpful in providing guidance toward the various careers related to therapy. If you're a psychology major, from New York to California, or anywhere in between, I say work hard, take advantage of opportunities offered by your school, work toward the common good, and good luck! And don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Subscribe now

References

Geher, G. (2019). Own Your Psychology Major! A Guide to Student Success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Srivastava, K. (2009). Urbanization and mental health, Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 18, 75-76.

NOTE: This article is adapted from a piece I wrote for Psychology Today. I own the copyright to the content.