The development of Integrated Psychotherapy (Knobloch & Knobloch,1 , Knobloch 2 ) , which started in 1940, was speeded up by the needs of the newly-born National Health Services in Czechoslovakia in 1948- a country with a low prestige of psychotherapy-aiming to establish a system of intensive and cost-effective psychotherapy, accessible to all who might benefit. At the same time I kept in mind the words of Kurt Lewin-that a good theory is the most practical thing- and attempted to integrate the important ideas of psychoanalysis, learning theories and ethology. This started in 1937, when being split between my fascination with psychoanalysis and the methodological warnings of the Prague logical empirists (R.Carnap, P. Frank), and continued after my emigration to North America in 1968. Here are the milestones of Integrated Psychotherapy. (Its practical achievements, what I believe is the most cost-effective system of psychotherapy in seven sequential stages- will not be dealt with here
(see, e.g.,Knobloch & Knobloch, 1, Knobloch 2 .

1. PSYCHOANALYSIS. For evolutionary psychology, the two most
important ideas of psychoanalysis are perhaps those of repression- a
strategy of deception and self-deception (Knobloch,3 ) which will be
reformulated later in terms of group schema-and (not usually
mentioned) transference. Freud demonstrated, in a quasi-experimental
situation of treatment, how easy it is to shift an attitude from a kin to a
non-kin person.(If the stories about the dogs attached to their masters
can be trusted, this is much more difficult for some breeds of dogs.)

2. FROM MENTALISTIIC PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PSYCHOTHERAPY OF THE
WHOLE ORGANISM. I became aware of the one-sidedness and resulting low effectiveness of verbal psychotherapies in 1940, through I.H. Schultz 4, the author of autogenic training ("!the complexes do not sit only in the mind, they are in the whole body"), who helped me to see psychotherapy in the context of such activities as hypnosis, yoga, meditation, and expressive dance. " A psychotherapist who
relies on talking only is like a soccer couch who has only interviews with the players and never sees them really playing." (Knobloch, 5 )A useful model of the of the abreaction (catharsis) I found in the "therapy" of Leyhausen, a student of K. Lorenz, who treated a wild cat, serval named Freda, who because of bad rearing in a zoo did not
develop the fixed action pattern of killing bite. In an elaborate procude, after Freda was kept very hungry. she was overstimulated by a competition for food with a conspecific, and the killing bite was finally activated and functioned since then. Such dramatic changes in deeply inhibited patients can often be achieved by abreaction, particularly in a ThC, provided the consequences of abreaction are worked through.

3.FROM ONE-PERSON FRAMEWORK TO INTERPERSONAL FRAMEWORK.
Freud described self-defeating behavior perfectly,as a repetition compulsion,but explained it poorly. To my knowledge, it was Schultz-Hencke 6 in 1942 as the first who not only criticised the insufficiency of Freud's explanatory one-person-framework, but who offered an interpersonal explanation, the vicious circle of neurosis or the devil's circle. To be more clear than the (somewhat clumsy) author, I will give
an example of an employee who, because of his experience with his father, expects the worst from every boss, so that he unwittingly teases out from every boss a behavior similar to that of his father, and that pseudo-confirms his hypothesis about males in authority.

4. FROM INTERPERSONAL TO SMALL- GROUP-SYSTEM FRAMEWORK.
When studying in England learning theories with H. Eysenck and psychoanalysis with Anna Freud, I was fortunate to see the therapeutic community of Maxwell Jones and appreciated immediately its potential. In contrast to his large community, and his limited
psychotherapeutic goals, I designed small therapeutic communities with the highest goals, of the size of 20-30 patients (the size of groups in which we lived as hunters-gatherers for 99 % of the human existence and which made us what we are today).I established four therapeutic communities in Czechoslovakia and in Canada, two residential ones and two in the day centres. I became persuaded that this kind of
therapeutic community (further ThC) is the most effective psychotherapeutic treatment, giving best information about the self-defeating behavior, and providing most powerful levers for change Knobloch & Knobloch 1 ,Knobloch 2). Also, it taught me to see every patient, even in individual treatment, as part of an invisible group,
though making it visible by including others --family members, friends, co-workers --in therapy, whenever needed. I came to the conclusion that a small social group is the minimum behavioral system in which an individual behavior can be uderstood. The concept of group schema will show how far-reaching this statement is.

5. SOCIAL EXCHANGE. Social life became the essential means of survival and social success became the essential determinant of inclusive fitness. Therefore it is understandable that calibrating the benefits and costs of the exchange, and discovering the cheatears (the benefits embracing goods, servic7es, status, love, information
and later also money), became vital, and led to a special modul, "Darwinian algorithm", in brain (Cosmides 7, Cosmides & Tooby, 8.
Regrettfully, Cosmides regards, similarly as Alexander and others, social exchange and reciprocal altruism as synonymous concepts ("it is the same thing", she told me). However, following the use of 'social exchange' as used in social psychology and sociology, I regard as important to distinguish both concepts. According to de Waal, if you forget a broom in the cage of a monkey, you have to go and get it. In
contrast, when dealing with chimpanzees, you can show them an apple and point to the broom, and they will understand and participate in the exchange. That I will call social exchange, the capacity which according to de Waal the monkeys lack.
The idea of social exchange appeared in social sciences from the
beginning of the century. In marital and family therapy it was
introduced under the name of "motivational equilibrium" (Knobloch &
Sefronova, 9 1954) and re-discovered and vulgarised two decades later by behavior marital therapists (the therapist assisting in contracts such as "sex for furniture"). But systematic theoretical work started with Homans 10 in1958 and Thibaut and Kelley 11 in 1959.Social exchange theories are accused of self-centred rationality (e.g.,
Caporael, 12 ), but that does not apply to sophisticated theories of
social exchange such as the interdependence theory of Kelley & Thibaut 13 . It is based on the fact that people are sensitive not only to their own profit, but also to the profit of those interacting with them. The authors use matrices as used in the theory of games and the given matrix is transformed into an effective matrix. Human beings may strive
to achieve their own maximum profit in their interaction (max-self, as in a zero-sum-game), but they are also often oriented to max-joint (the maximum sum of profits of both), to min-dif (the smallest possible difference of profits of both), or they may be oriented to a max-other (sacrifice). Since in good marriages there is a max joint and/or min-dif, the partners do not count the balances of every exchange, as is typical for bad marriages. Permanent and cautious counting is inimical to any close relationship, whether to a good marrainge or to a close friendship.
The concept of social exchange will emerge again when talking about group schema and about the meta-selection. II also believe that the Darwinian algorithm of social exchange is the basis of distributive and retributive justice. And although I value the theory of history based on historical materialism (Marx and Engels) and cultural materialism (M.
Harris) as first approximations, I believe that social exchange plays an improtant role in history (including the drive to achieve "justice" by revenge between neighbouring tribes and nations).

6. GROUP SCHEMA. We live in our natural habitat, small social group,even when we are alone- in our thoughts, dreams and fantasies. It is assumed here that the framework of group schema is innate- a group schema composed of role schemas: male-female authorities, male-female peers, male-female subordinates, and male-female intimate (sexual) partners. The individual group schema is shaped in ontogenesis by learning, possibly including the process similar to imprinting.

Group schema consists of Role Schemas:
Authorities MF, Peers MF, Subordinates MF, Intimate (Sex) Partners MF

The individualised group schema has three functions. It is a cognitive map of social relations. Second, It is a playground for experimenting with social relations in fantasy. And third, ii functions as a parallel market of social exchange-imagined rewards are also rewards and similarly are punishments. One product of group schema, based on the interaction with role schemas, is conscience and feelings of guilt. (According to K. Lorenz, dogs have conscience and feelings of guilt- they originate from wolves living in hierarchical packs, in contrast to cats, as de Waal notices, who do not show any feelings of guilt at all- their ancestors were solitary hunters.) Through group schema, society indoctrinates the individual day and night.(To the full understanding of group schema, the knowledge of the criticism of the intrapsychic-interpersonal fallacy is necessary (Knobloch & Knobloch, 1,14 ).

7. META-SELECTION. In contrast to what has been said so far, the hypothesis of meta-selection goes far beyond established facts. But if it will be confirmed, it will give new meaning to all what has been said before creating a foundation for a far-reaching theory connecting dispersed themes of behavioral sciences. A year ago, I postulated
(Knobloch, 15; Exchange debate JM Barkow- F Knobloch, 16; DS
Wilson-F Knobloch, 17) meta-selection as the kind of selection beside natural
selection and sex selection, a selection which is intra-specific as sex
selection, but is a kind of group selection. As powerful as a superordinate breeder, the group-as-a-whole exerted one-directional selective pressure in the evolution of humans and pre-humans, and produced pro-social dispositions, altruism beyond reciprocity to one's group and to it members. The pro-social behavior developed as an
equivalent of club membership fee, or taxes paid to the government.
(Informative in this regard are the results of marital studies: whereas in
problem marriages the spouses count rewards and costs, the spouses
in good marriages do not: an exchange orientation, counting of give-
and-take, is inimical to marital happiness.)

How did the meta-selection develop? In fierce competition, the better organised and better living groups survived. The group organisers (those with systematic power to influence and coerce the group : power coalition, power elite, ruling class, governing class, economic and cultural brokers such as shamans) set and reinforced the rules of
conduct and the rules of social exchange determining what was fair and just.
What motivates the group organisers? Beside the interest which every group member has, they enjoy special bonuses (even if of smaller size during the evolutionary relevant era of hunters-gatherers than later when a king had 1000 concubines).
What pressure do they exert? They set the rules of conduct and the rates of social exchange (fairness, justice); they supervise social exchange. they favor regarding non-kin as kin (with self as possible exceptions). they cultivate group morale stressing certain kinds of altruism, particularly for the group-as-a-whole. Social exchange has
general support (including moral anger for rule breakers), with self as possible exception. Elementary examples can be found in de Waal's 18, 19, 20) observations on chimpanzees.
The genetic outcome? Altruism beyond reciprocity (sympathy, empathy, group concern)- Sensitivity to social approval and to gratitude- The development of group schema (group takes over private fantasy life)-Submissivenes to authority-Techniques of
deception and self-deception (repression, "social filter": E. Fromm)- De-emphasise of the difference between kin and non-kin (Freud's transference being one example).
As the sex selection may be in conflict with natural selection (the color and ornaments of male birds and fish may decrease the protection against predators), so features selected by meta-selection may conflict both with those selected by natural and sexual selection. The struggle to achieve a harmony among tendencies stemming from
the three selections is our everyday destiny. Egoists, erotomans losing life pursuing sexual goals, and kamikazes represent three extreme ways missing the balance.

8. DARWINISM -A DANGEROUS IDEA? The core of the theory of evolution is dangerous only to those who value superstitions more than science. However, an unconfirmed interpretation of the evolution theory held as a dogma can be socially dangerous and damaging, as social Darwinism (or rather social Spenserism) was. A contemporary example is the misinterpretation of "selfish gene"-the concept which is semantically correct, but pragmatically disastrous. Even its author Dawkins 21 mixes its evolutionary and psychological meanings. "I am not advocating morality based on evolution...We are born selfish.." And Hrdy warns that the message of socio-biology is oriented toward the success of the individual, is Macchiavelian and should not be taught in high schools and perhaps not even in undergraduate classes. Thiessen
22 disagrees and quotes Alexander that children should be taught about the selfish gene and when and when not to extend co-operation. "Since genetic fitness is enhanced by helping relatives, parents should reinforce children more for helping close relatives than for helping distant relatives or strangers. The concept of "right" and "wrong" would
be instilled into children in a fashion that would increase their reproductive potential and that of their relatives with whom they share genes....Fortunately, children seem to follow the Selfish Gene more than they do the Golden Rule... "( pp. 286-289).
This is an abhorrent example of an uncontrolled speculation and of deriving "an "ought" from an "is" (an is, which is questionable and likely wrong). If the meta-selection hypothesis is valid, Hrdy" s concerns are unfounded and Thiessen"s views are totally wrong. Humans have innate tendencies both of egoism and altruism beyond reciprocity and struggle every day with the difficult task of finding the balance.

REFERENCES
1 Knobloch,F.,& Knobloch ,J. Integrated Psychotherapy. New York: J. Aronson, 1979.( German, 1983; Japanese, 1984; Czech, 1992; Chinese, 1996).
2 Knobloch,F. Toward integration through group-based psychotherapy: Back to the future. J. of Psychotherapy Integration, 6 (1). 1-25, 1996. 3 Knobloch, F. Toward a conceptual framework of group-centered psychotherapy. In B.F. Ries (Ed.), New Directkons in Mental Health.(pp.118-132). New York: Brune & STratton.
4 Schultz, I.H. Das Autogene Training. Leipzig, Germany: G. Thieme, 1939.
5 Knobloch,F. The system of group-centered psychotherapy for neurotics in Czechoslovakia. Am. J. of Psychiatry, 124, 1227-1231, 1968.
6 Schultz-Hencke, H. (1942). Der gehemmte Mensch. Lepzig:G. Thieme, 1942.
7 Cosmides, L. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition,31, 187-276, 1989.
8 Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmidkes, &J. Tooby,Edts. Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the evolution of culture. New York:
Redford Press, 163- 2o28, 1992.
9 Knobloch, F. & Šefrnová, Pťíspšvek k technice rodinné psychoterapie. [A contribution to the technique of family psychotherapy.] Neurologie a psychiatrie csl., 17, 217-224, 1954.
10 Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. of Sociology,63, 597-606, 1958.
11 Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959.
`12 Caporael, L.D., Dawes, R. M. & al. Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behav. & Brain Sciences, 12, 683-739, 1989.
13 Kelley, H.H., & Thibaut,J.W. Interpersonal relations-A theory of interpdependence.New York: Wiley, 1978.
14 Knobloch, F., & Knobloch, J. Toward a new paradigm of psychoanalysis.Journal of the Am. Academy of Psychoanalysis, 7, 499-524,1979.
15 Knobloch, F. Individual, group , or meta=selection? ASCAP.9 (5),15-16,
2996
16 Barkow, J.M., and Knobloch, F. Natural, sex, and meta-selection (an exchange debate). ASCAP, 9 (8), 13-16, 1996.
17 Wilson, D. S., Knobloch,F. Exchange debate. ASCAP,10 (1), 11-12, 1997.
18 de Waal, F. Chimpanzee politics. New York: Harper& Row.. 1982
19 de Waal , F. Peacemaking among primates. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 1989.
20 de Waal, F. Good natured. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Unviersity Press, 1996.
21 Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
The Selfish Gene. New edition, 1989.
22 Thiessen D. Bittersweet Destiny. New Brunswick, U.S.A.:Transcation
Publishers, 1996
23Alexander, R.D. Natural selection and social exchange. In R.L. Burgess & T.L.Huston, (Eds.) Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 199-221). New.// York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1979.