↓ Skip to main content

A teleofunctional account of evolutionary mismatch

Overview of attention for article published in Biology & Philosophy, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
A teleofunctional account of evolutionary mismatch
Published in
Biology & Philosophy, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10539-016-9527-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan Cofnas

Abstract

When the environment in which an organism lives deviates in some essential way from that to which it is adapted, this is described as "evolutionary mismatch," or "evolutionary novelty." The notion of mismatch plays an important role, explicitly or implicitly, in evolution-informed cognitive psychology, clinical psychology, and medicine. The evolutionary novelty of our contemporary environment is thought to have significant implications for our health and well-being. However, scientists have generally been working without a clear definition of mismatch. This paper defines mismatch as deviations in the environment that render biological traits unable, or impaired in their ability, to produce their selected effects (i.e., to perform their proper functions in Neander's sense). The machinery developed by Millikan in connection with her account of proper function, and with her related teleosemantic account of representation, is used to identify four major types, and several subtypes, of evolutionary mismatch. While the taxonomy offered here does not in itself resolve any scientific debates, the hope is that it can be used to better formulate empirical hypotheses concerning the effects of mismatch. To illustrate, it is used to show that the controversial hypothesis that general intelligence evolved as an adaptation to handle evolutionary novelty can, contra some critics, be formulated in a conceptually coherent way.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Philosophy 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,189,714
of 23,267,128 outputs
Outputs from Biology & Philosophy
#259
of 673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,232
of 299,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology & Philosophy
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,267,128 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.