...advantages.

Claiming that we are born to specialize is not the same as claiming that we are each born with a tendency toward a particular specialization. We are not saying that someone is born to be a hand-ax maker, but instead s/he is born to specialize. Many circumstances, such as opportunity and training, will lead him/her to become a hand-ax maker as the case may be. In other words the claim about the naturalness of the division of labor says absolutely nothing at all about the ``nature vs. nurture'' debate.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...exchange.

In a small pilot we replicated one of their experiments and found virtually the same pattern of abilities they reported, but our sample was too small (N = 16) to yield significant results.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...being.

Many of those who have commented on previous drafts of this have immediately assumed that we were talking about individual differences and supporting some sort of social Darwinism, although we had stated several times throughout the draft the exact opposite. It appears that one cannot mention the words ``evolution'', ``biology'', or ``Darwinism'' when discussing social behavior without being mistaken for a social Darwinist or racist. The strength of the tendency to see these evils in all talk about evolution and human behavior is fascinating in and of itself, but for the immediate concern it requires that we insert footnotes such as this that repeat: we are talking about human universals, not about human differences.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.