Skip Navigation

Socio-Economic Review 2004 2(3):371-390; doi:10.1093/soceco/2.3.371
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kanazawa, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B52 - Institutional; Evolutionary
Right arrow J16 - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics 2004. All rights reserved.

Social sciences are branches of biology

Satoshi Kanazawa*

Interdisciplinary Institute of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom

Correspondence: s.kanazawa{at}lse.ac.uk

Since biology is the study of living organisms, their behaviour and social systems, and since humans are living organisms, it is possible to suggest that social sciences (the study of human behaviour and social systems) are branches of biology and all social scientific theories should be consistent with known biological principles. To claim otherwise and to establish a separate science only for humans might be analogous to the establishment of hydrogenology, the study of hydrogen separate from and inconsistent with the rest of physics. Evolutionary psychology is the application of evolutionary biology to humans, and provides the most general (panspecific) explanations of human behaviour, cognitions, emotions and human social systems. Evolutionary psychology's recognition that humans are animals can explain some otherwise perplexing empirical puzzles in social sciences, such as why there is a wage penalty for motherhood but a wage reward for fatherhood, and why boys produce a greater wage reward for fathers than do girls. The General Social Survey data illustrate the evolutionary psychological argument that reproductive success is important for both men's and women's happiness, but money is only important for men's.

Key Words: consilience • Trivers–Willard hypothesis • wage penalty for motherhood • wage reward for fatherhood • JEL classification: B52 currently heterodox approaches (institutional, evolutionary), J16 Demographic economics (economic of gender)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.