- Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:48 pm
I think the word committed, when in the context of human relationships in general, can definitely a pretty scary word. However, in the context of explaining human relationships, at least the tendency to exhibit altruistic, the word committed is relatively straightforward. My reading of passage A was that the author really wasn't trying to "explain" evolutionary psychology as much as they were trying to explain away potential holes to the coherence of evolutionary psychology as an explanation of human behavior in general. The author spends most of the time showing how apparently unselfish behavior can nevertheless be considered through a framework of selfish action. That is to say, rather than acknowledge the inherent paradox that is unselfish behavior, the author attempts to double down, and explain the behavior using the theory itself. This definitely, in my mind, shows that the author is committed to using the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior, even those that don't apparently fit neatly into the framework.
Now if you're looking to a specific point in the passage, then I would look no further than the start of the second paragraph, where the author answers their own question posed in the first paragraph identifying the apparent paradox using the evolutionary framework.
Let me know if you have further questions.