Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://buratest.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/2659
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPrice, M-
dc.contributor.authorBrown, WM-
dc.contributor.authorCurry, OS-
dc.coverage.spatial2en
dc.date.accessioned2008-09-16T09:08:16Z-
dc.date.available2008-09-16T09:08:16Z-
dc.date.issued2007-
dc.identifier.citationBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 30: 39-40en
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/2659-
dc.description.abstractThe adaptationist framework is necessary and sufficient for unifying the social and natural sciences. Gintis’s “beliefs, preferences, and constraints” (BPC) model compares unfavorably to this framework because it lacks criteria for determining special design, incorrectly assumes that standard evolutionary theory predicts individual rationality maximisation, does not adequately recognize the impact of psychological mechanisms on culture, and is mute on the behavioural implications of intragenomic conflict.en
dc.format.extent48012 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.titleThe integrative framework for the behavioural sciences has already been discovered, and it is the adaptationist approachen
dc.typeResearch Paperen
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07000817-
Appears in Collections:Psychology
Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Price_et_al_BBS_Commentary.pdf46.89 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.