ARIZABAL, Jerizza Joy R. I.D. No.

11892781 PSY510M G02 February 27, 2019

A Personal Insight on Buss’ (2008) Human Nature and Individual Differences: Evolution of Human Personality
David M. Buss (2008) discussed two major tents in his theory, which is human nature and individual differences.
The main point of his theory was that people embody human nature and if the components of this were made to perform
specific functions, identifying the most crucial individual differences involves finding specific differences that affect
certain functions (Buss, 2008).
The first tenet of Buss’ (2008) theory was on human nature. Human nature started when previous generations
have produced characteristics that interacted and were passed down to modern humans because it had helped solve
problems during evolution. These adaptations eventually became a characteristic common for the species. Human nature
also placed emphasis on specific properties like being made to fit a particular feature, taking in a limited subset of
information, addressing adaptive problems, using cues on how to solve problems, and possessing different complex
mechanisms. One mechanism was the evolution of motives, goals and strivings where people possess several motives like
striving for status, mate selection, universal emotions, and parental motivation. Buss (2008) states that people strive for
status due to hierarchy where those of high status would always outreproduce the lower class. They also strive to look for
a mate in order to produce children and groom them to carry their legacy. While I would agree with the major tenets on
human nature, I somewhat disagree with his take on this particular mechanism. Certain parts of the theory seemed more
male-oriented, with Buss (2008) placing emphasis that men strive for status based on historical evidence that male
authority figures used their status to gain sexual access towards women. In his theory, he described women differing from
men due to their biological differences and that women were simply bearers of burdens like childbirth. He predicted that
men would have greater desire for status, would be more willing to achieve it, and would experience more pain for loss of
status compared to women. Furthermore, mate attraction only occurs for the sake of reproducing and that universal
emotions are only for solving specific adaptive problems. Buss’ (2008) theory may be correct to some extent but, in my
opinion, women are just as in need of striving for status as men. Women have a long history of oppression and are often
viewed as Sigmund Freud described, “the tender sex” (Feist & Feist, 2013); however, society is slowly becoming open
towards gender equality; thus, beginning an opportunity for women to strive for higher status and goals. They could also
experience pain in terms of loss just as men do. I also disagree with the idea that people have mating motivation only for
the sake of reproducing. Though it could be a factor, I believe that humans could also search for mates for pleasure and
companionship. In Freud’s theory, sex was a main component in satisfying one’s libido could, acting as motivation for
pleasure, and in Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, human contact like mating could be a form of need like love and
belongingness. Lastly, I disagree with his notion on universal emotions being means of survival. Maslow’s theory states
that emotions could be expressed unconsciously and simply for the sake of expressing behavior (Feist & Feist, 2013).
Although I disagree with certain parts of his theory, I believe that Buss’ (2008) take on human nature is comprehensive
and would help researchers further understand evolution and human nature.
The second tenet of Buss’ (2008) theory is individual differences. Buss (2008) states that individual differences
could stem from heredity or the environment. Each person has different experiences starting from their early environment,
specific contingencies, strategies and assessment of their goals; however, this could also be shaped through heredity with
balancing selection and mutation. I find the second part of this theory quite simple. Individual differences could be
inherited but, at the same time, shaped by external factors. According to Buss (2008), individual differences emerge
through mutations that are passed on. Previous generations have kept positive traits to some degree and this carries over to
their offspring. However, environment could also change how they deal with the outside world through the process of
inputting information, processing, developing psychological models, and pursuing certain outputs. Individual differences
could also be a product of different interactions that people have obtained from different environmental stimuli. I agree
that individual differences could be inherited, but I also think it’s possible for these differences to lose individuality when
they get passed on to the offspring and gradually become part of human nature. However, although the difference is lost,
this could be helpful in a way that it will help the population survive as evolution continues. Lastly, environment could
help shape individual differences but there could be a downside to this in like psychopathy, a negative trait that can be
obtained from exploiting the environment, so obtaining individual differences from the environment can also open the
risks to different pathologies.
A connection between human nature and individual differences is evident. From what I understand, a single
organism could start out with a different trait that marks their individuality and if positive, this could be passed on to
future generations until it becomes a trademark of certain species and become part of their human nature. Buss (2008) has
introduced a very interesting view on the evolution of personality. Although flawed, it gives us more insight on the
identity of a person as part of their nature and what makes them different. It could also serve as guide for future research
in psychological evolution. I recommend doing further research on the evolution of human personality in a more recent
perspective compared to before. There is a possibility that this study could have a different prediction now than before.