>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
I'm not the biggest fan of ev psych in toto, but there are aspects I find fascinating. One of these aspects had its key ingredients forged in the heat of Savonarola's bonfires or at least that milieu that included an odd juxtaposition of the Borgia and Medici dynasties and a political philosophy that resulted...
> On Oct 23, 4:08 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Oct, 11:43, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>>>>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>>>>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>>>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>>>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>>>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
>>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>>>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>>>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>>>> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>>> Well, he makes justifiable criticisms, but it would be foolish to
>>> claim - as some do - that evolutionary psychology is *in *principle
>>> unscientific. Psychology was always a fit subject for study, but
>>> early testing of models and gathering good data was very hard. We have
>>> new mathematical tools now, and more importantly, ways of watching
>>> brain activity in real time. Psychology is shaping up nicely as a
>>> respectable science - altho a generation of just-so story spinners
>>> will have to die off for its reputation to really get established.
>>> Evolutionary psychology is in the same early stages. In time we will
>>> have better tools; perhaps the day will come when we will have good
>>> models on how a particular genome would express itself in a particular
>>> specific environment. I'm not holding my breath, though.
>>> Perhaps we will be able to better establish behavior in various
>>> cultures and model backwards to some degree from there, analogous to
>>> recreating the Proto-Indoeuropean language.
>>> I do think that it's obvious that our behavior is an expression of our
>>> genes in the modern world, and that our mind, like the rest of us,
>>> grew from ancestral species and their traits. We may never get the
>>> history of the mind satisfactorily worked out. A time machine would be
>>> nice, he said wistfully.
>> I don't mind evolutionary psychologists speculating about the orgins
>> of various human cognitive and behavioral abilities. The real problem
>> is best expressed by a question raised in that article: "Then why do
>> enthusiasts for evolutionary psychology insist that politicians and
>> social scientists should pay attention to the evolutionary roots of
>> behavior?" It is the intrusion of what is now purely half-baked ideas
>> into the realm of law and economics and sociology and education that
>> scares me. Even when the ideas become fully baked, we still must not
>> write laws or produce educational and social policy based on what
>> paleolithic humans may or may not have done. We must root these in
>> what modern humans are and how we behave regardless of how we came to
>> be the way we are.
> Sounds pretty common sense to me. But do evolutionary psychology
> enthusiasts actually insist that politicians and social scientists pay
> attention (hardly the same as critically endorse)?
Ev psychers should and have paid attention to political philosophy, specifically Machiavelli. So the influence goes the other way and the interpersonal nuances of cognitive psychology are but a footnote to Renaissance Florence and its political shenanigans. Florence is thus the EEA.
> Gottlieb offers no
> examples. And if they did so "insist" (maybe it's more like "suggest")
> would that really be so bad? It's not always clear what advances will
> come from seemingly obscure research, and I find Gottlieb's glib
> dismissal of this kind of information a bit disturbing,
When I saw the name Gottlieb, I was thinking of someone else. I was disappointed, but it looks like Gilbert has passed away.
> "It doesn’t make any practical difference exactly how our traits
> became established. All that matters is that they are there."
> "Still, when a youth is knifed outside a night club, no cop needs
> evening classes in evolutionary psychology to realize the folly of
> rounding up grannies. It has also been claimed, in an academic
> journal, that books of tips by pickup artists show how the insights of
> evolutionary psychology can pay off in real life, or at least in bars.
> Field research into this is no doubt ongoing."
> I think the points he makes reduce to a few observations with which we
> can all pretty much agree: evo-psych is a fledgling discipline, some
> enthusiasts overstate its reach (we can all probably remember similar
> enthusiasm surrounding evo-devo), and everything should be taken with
> a grain of salt.
I still stick by Gould's criticisms of the field of ev psych. I always thought evo-devo was on firmer groundplans, being nothing but a footnote to Goethe ;-)
> I have to agree with a previous poster. I recognize that he's writing
> a popular article, but it seems to me, considering how little he
> actually says, that he could have been less sarcastic about it.
>>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>I'm not the biggest fan of ev psych in toto, but there are aspects I >find fascinating. One of these aspects had its key ingredients forged in >the heat of Savonarola's bonfires or at least that milieu that included >an odd juxtaposition of the Borgia and Medici dynasties and a political >philosophy that resulted...
>All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to >the Papacy it seems.
I believe history, literature, political science, and ethics have gone
rather thoroughly into the ramifications of all this without the need
to put an evolutionary basis on it. Its application to (and by)
modern humans stands on its own.
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:28:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2012 02:39 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>>>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>>>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>>> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>> I'm not the biggest fan of ev psych in toto, but there are aspects I
>> find fascinating. One of these aspects had its key ingredients forged in
>> the heat of Savonarola's bonfires or at least that milieu that included
>> an odd juxtaposition of the Borgia and Medici dynasties and a political
>> philosophy that resulted...
>> All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to
>> the Papacy it seems.
> I believe history, literature, political science, and ethics have gone
> rather thoroughly into the ramifications of all this without the need
> to put an evolutionary basis on it. Its application to (and by)
> modern humans stands on its own.
I'm presently more interested in the history of Florence at that time. But the notion that there could be deep seated cognitive dynamics at play is not anathema to me. The manner in which chimps interact in groups could have some bearing upon our interactions. Our interpersonal dynamic doesn't emerge from nothing.
I know I get indignant when it seems others are slacking or I'm not being reciprocated. Why? I try to trust others, but have had this tendency shattered and stay vigilant for the wool being pulled over my eyes. Why? I look for charades and facades or what Jung referred to as the "persona". Given the peaking of this election cycle the topic is even more apropos.
<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/24/2012 06:51 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:28:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2012 02:39 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>>>>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>>>>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>>>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>>>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>>>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
>>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>>>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>>>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>>>> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>>> I'm not the biggest fan of ev psych in toto, but there are aspects I
>>> find fascinating. One of these aspects had its key ingredients forged in
>>> the heat of Savonarola's bonfires or at least that milieu that included
>>> an odd juxtaposition of the Borgia and Medici dynasties and a political
>>> philosophy that resulted...
>>> All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to
>>> the Papacy it seems.
>> I believe history, literature, political science, and ethics have gone
>> rather thoroughly into the ramifications of all this without the need
>> to put an evolutionary basis on it. Its application to (and by)
>> modern humans stands on its own.
>I'm presently more interested in the history of Florence at that time. >But the notion that there could be deep seated cognitive dynamics at >play is not anathema to me. The manner in which chimps interact in >groups could have some bearing upon our interactions. Our interpersonal >dynamic doesn't emerge from nothing.
>I know I get indignant when it seems others are slacking or I'm not >being reciprocated. Why? I try to trust others, but have had this >tendency shattered and stay vigilant for the wool being pulled over my >eyes. Why? I look for charades and facades or what Jung referred to as >the "persona". Given the peaking of this election cycle the topic is >even more apropos.
Getting indignant when somebody takes advantage of you is reasonable.
Claiming you did it because some ancient mammalian ancestor puts its
genes into you to make you do it is not. Establishing laws or social
policy that makes taking advantage acceptable because it has a long
evolutionary background is plainly and simply wrong.
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:22:20 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2012 06:51 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:28:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2012 02:39 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>>>>>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>>>>>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>>>>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>>>>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>>>>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
>>>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>>>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>>>>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>>>>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>>>>> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>>>> I'm not the biggest fan of ev psych in toto, but there are aspects I
>>>> find fascinating. One of these aspects had its key ingredients forged in
>>>> the heat of Savonarola's bonfires or at least that milieu that included
>>>> an odd juxtaposition of the Borgia and Medici dynasties and a political
>>>> philosophy that resulted...
>>>> All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to
>>>> the Papacy it seems.
>>> I believe history, literature, political science, and ethics have gone
>>> rather thoroughly into the ramifications of all this without the need
>>> to put an evolutionary basis on it. Its application to (and by)
>>> modern humans stands on its own.
>> I'm presently more interested in the history of Florence at that time.
>> But the notion that there could be deep seated cognitive dynamics at
>> play is not anathema to me. The manner in which chimps interact in
>> groups could have some bearing upon our interactions. Our interpersonal
>> dynamic doesn't emerge from nothing.
>> I know I get indignant when it seems others are slacking or I'm not
>> being reciprocated. Why? I try to trust others, but have had this
>> tendency shattered and stay vigilant for the wool being pulled over my
>> eyes. Why? I look for charades and facades or what Jung referred to as
>> the "persona". Given the peaking of this election cycle the topic is
>> even more apropos.
> Getting indignant when somebody takes advantage of you is reasonable.
> Claiming you did it because some ancient mammalian ancestor puts its
> genes into you to make you do it is not.
Why do you say this? I find it reasonable to assume that many of my emotional and interpersonal foibles stem from brain evolution. Recognizing those flaws does not make them right.
But OTOH these baser instincts can inform our judgment. Or maybe they are not so base if we take Sheldon Cooper as the clueless example who is out of tune socially. Instinct can be wrong, but not always. Emotionally informed judgment could be spot on. I feel you are casually dismissing what I have to say. Is that wrong?
> Establishing laws or social
> policy that makes taking advantage acceptable because it has a long
> evolutionary background is plainly and simply wrong.
Is meet your ought. I fear you are projecting way too simplistic a take on this topic. When did I say that I think that the realization of human nature being somewhat flawed at its base means we should be that way? Are you a ventriloquist? We should strive to rise above our baser natures. We should not totally ignore the input. Fear of heights can keep you from falling off a cliff, but it can impede you from enjoying a spectacular scene.
The recognition, though, that a wrong *might* be committed does not make that assumption right. This is a pun on might makes right. The interpretation that stems from our so-called Machiavellian intelligence could be wrong. Being evolved as it could be it isn't perfect.
<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/24/2012 08:26 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:22:20 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2012 06:51 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:28:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
>>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/2012 02:39 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>>>>>>> I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
>>>>>>> was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>>>>>> seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>>>>>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>>>>>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
>>>>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>>>>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>>>>>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>>>>>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>>>>>> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>>>>> I'm not the biggest fan of ev psych in toto, but there are aspects I
>>>>> find fascinating. One of these aspects had its key ingredients forged in
>>>>> the heat of Savonarola's bonfires or at least that milieu that included
>>>>> an odd juxtaposition of the Borgia and Medici dynasties and a political
>>>>> philosophy that resulted...
>>>>> All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to
>>>>> the Papacy it seems.
>>>> I believe history, literature, political science, and ethics have gone
>>>> rather thoroughly into the ramifications of all this without the need
>>>> to put an evolutionary basis on it. Its application to (and by)
>>>> modern humans stands on its own.
>>> I'm presently more interested in the history of Florence at that time.
>>> But the notion that there could be deep seated cognitive dynamics at
>>> play is not anathema to me. The manner in which chimps interact in
>>> groups could have some bearing upon our interactions. Our interpersonal
>>> dynamic doesn't emerge from nothing.
>>> I know I get indignant when it seems others are slacking or I'm not
>>> being reciprocated. Why? I try to trust others, but have had this
>>> tendency shattered and stay vigilant for the wool being pulled over my
>>> eyes. Why? I look for charades and facades or what Jung referred to as
>>> the "persona". Given the peaking of this election cycle the topic is
>>> even more apropos.
>> Getting indignant when somebody takes advantage of you is reasonable.
>> Claiming you did it because some ancient mammalian ancestor puts its
>> genes into you to make you do it is not.
>Why do you say this? I find it reasonable to assume that many of my >emotional and interpersonal foibles stem from brain evolution. >Recognizing those flaws does not make them right.
>But OTOH these baser instincts can inform our judgment. Or maybe they >are not so base if we take Sheldon Cooper as the clueless example who is >out of tune socially. Instinct can be wrong, but not always. Emotionally >informed judgment could be spot on. I feel you are casually dismissing >what I have to say. Is that wrong?
>> Establishing laws or social
>> policy that makes taking advantage acceptable because it has a long
>> evolutionary background is plainly and simply wrong.
>Is meet your ought. I fear you are projecting way too simplistic a take >on this topic. When did I say that I think that the realization of human >nature being somewhat flawed at its base means we should be that way? >Are you a ventriloquist? We should strive to rise above our baser >natures. We should not totally ignore the input. Fear of heights can >keep you from falling off a cliff, but it can impede you from enjoying a >spectacular scene.
>The recognition, though, that a wrong *might* be committed does not make >that assumption right. This is a pun on might makes right. The >interpretation that stems from our so-called Machiavellian intelligence >could be wrong. Being evolved as it could be it isn't perfect.
I have no problem with studying the evolutionary basis of human
behavior for its scientific value and to help us better understand our
place in the universe. I do have a problem with using evolution to
explain or justify what we now do. The Genesis account of Eden was
exceptionally perceptive in this regard: we humans have eaten from
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (metaphorically, in case you
are puzzled) and with that perception of right and wrong are
responsible for our behavior.
Evolution makes us shit and pee but culture indicates we refrain from
doing so except in special locations and our bodies become subject to
our will. We make special allowances for those whose bodies suffer
from defects of disease, old age, and infancy but those allowances are
also cultural, not evolutionary. There are all kinds of things that
we may have tendencies towards for evolutionary reasons but culture
determines that we do not always act except under particular
circumstances. Agression expressed as violence against innocents is
punished; controlled agression on the playing field is welcomed. What
is "base" is not defined by what is "animal" within us but what is
banned by culture. And it doesn't matter why I am afraid of heights:
some people are and some are not and that is what matters.
Incidentally, are you familiar with the argument that Machiavelli's
Prince was written as satire, not as a handbook for behavior?
> On 10/23/12 4:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 1:38 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> The assumption is pro-Atheism.
> >>>> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
> >>>> Mastermind.
> >>> Oh really? How about a mastermoron?
> >> Why did He place a runny scummy thing like the
> >> nose directly above the mouth? Has the FDA
> >> looked into this?
> >> --
> >> Rich
> > Where should it be?
> If species evolved, the nose should be exactly where it is, as humans
> evolved from earlier creatures who had noses in that position. If
> humans were specially created, the nose could have been placed anywhere
> on the body.
> There's no reason why, if humans were a special creation, that our
> breathing, and eating tracts should be combined. That choking to death
> is a possibility is a design flaw that any competent designer would have
> avoided.
Reptiles and birds have it even worse. The way a bird drinks water is
very inefficient, and almost comical.
I didn't know until recently what a secondary palate was, but now that
I know what it is, I see that it is an exremely good thing to have.
At the other end, I have always thought it a bit inconvenient to have
urine and sperm pass through the same tubes.
But it could have been worse -- we could have had cloacas.
> > Be descriptive.
> > Waiting....
> > Ray
> DJT
I wonder whether Ray has already gotten tired of waiting.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/ nyikos @ math.sc.edu
> >>>> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
> >>>> Mastermind.
> >>> Oh really? How about a mastermoron?
> >> Why did He place a runny scummy thing like the
> >> nose directly above the mouth? Has the FDA
> >> looked into this?
> > Where should it be?
> If species evolved, the nose should be exactly where it is, as humans
> evolved from earlier creatures who had noses in that position. If
> humans were specially created, the nose could have been placed anywhere
> on the body.
> There's no reason why, if humans were a special creation, that our
> breathing, and eating tracts should be combined. That choking to death
> is a possibility is a design flaw that any competent designer would have
> avoided.
Shouldn't the air intake be closer to the lungs?
Also, why are we so sensitive to oxygen deprivation?
One minute, you pass out; 3 minutes, death. We ought
to have a high pressure emergency backup, to emit a slow
stream of oxygen in etxremis, maybe good for an hour.
<r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
>> >>>> Mastermind.
>> >>> Oh really? How about a mastermoron?
>> >> Why did He place a runny scummy thing like the
>> >> nose directly above the mouth? Has the FDA
>> >> looked into this?
>> > Where should it be?
>> If species evolved, the nose should be exactly where it is, as humans
>> evolved from earlier creatures who had noses in that position. If
>> humans were specially created, the nose could have been placed anywhere
>> on the body.
>> There's no reason why, if humans were a special creation, that our
>> breathing, and eating tracts should be combined. That choking to death
>> is a possibility is a design flaw that any competent designer would have
>> avoided.
>Shouldn't the air intake be closer to the lungs?
>Also, why are we so sensitive to oxygen deprivation?
>One minute, you pass out; 3 minutes, death. We ought
>to have a high pressure emergency backup, to emit a slow
>stream of oxygen in etxremis, maybe good for an hour.
>Many fixes on the list, for the next rev, Lord -
It's all about design tradeoffs. Sensitivity to deprivation is
proportional to metabolic activity. If your willing to live like a
sloth, or a hibernating rodent, your need for oxygen is greatly
reduced, and so your sensitivity.
> >>Well, he makes justifiable criticisms, but it would be foolish to
> >>claim - as some do - that evolutionary psychology is *in *principle
> >>unscientific. Psychology was always a fit subject for study, but
> >>early testing of models and gathering good data was very hard. We have
> >>new mathematical tools now, and more importantly, ways of watching
> >>brain activity in real time. Psychology is shaping up nicely as a
> >>respectable science - altho a generation of just-so story spinners
> >>will have to die off for its reputation to really get established.
> >>Evolutionary psychology is in the same early stages. In time we will
> >>have better tools; perhaps the day will come when we will have good
> >>models on how a particular genome would express itself in a particular
> >>specific environment. I'm not holding my breath, though.
> >>Perhaps we will be able to better establish behavior in various
> >>cultures and model backwards to some degree from there, analogous to
> >>recreating the Proto-Indoeuropean language.
> >>I do think that it's obvious that our behavior is an expression of our
> >>genes in the modern world, and that our mind, like the rest of us,
> >>grew from ancestral species and their traits. We may never get the
> >>history of the mind satisfactorily worked out. A time machine would be
> >>nice, he said wistfully.
> >I don't mind evolutionary psychologists speculating about the orgins
> >of various human cognitive and behavioral abilities. The real problem
> >is best expressed by a question raised in that article: "Then why do
> >enthusiasts for evolutionary psychology insist that politicians and
> >social scientists should pay attention to the evolutionary roots of
> >behavior?" It is the intrusion of what is now purely half-baked ideas
> >into the realm of law and economics and sociology and education that
> >scares me. Even when the ideas become fully baked, we still must not
> >write laws or produce educational and social policy based on what
> >paleolithic humans may or may not have done. We must root these in
> >what modern humans are and how we behave regardless of how we came to
> >be the way we are.
> There is a long running debate whether human behaviour is intrinsic or
> learned. Evolutionary psychology, in practice at least, and I understand
> in principle as well, assumes that it is intrinsic. Behaviour in many
> other species of animals has been shown to be hereditary. However it is
> plausible that humanity is exception - the human behavioural adaptation
> may have been to exploit the greater flexibility of learned behaviour
> patterns (allowing easier niche-shifting). Given that there is evidence
> of culturally transmitted traits in several different non-human species
> there would be nothing unprecedented about humanity doing so - in fact
> the phylogenetic distribution of learned behaviour patterns at least
> hints that having done so to some degree pre-dated Homo sapiens.
> Evolutionary psychology also adopts a concept of the environment of
> evolutionary adaptation, which entails there being a time lag between
> the behaviour and the adaptation. Commonly the Palaeolithic is assumed
> to be that environment. This is also an assumption.
> This doesn't make evolutionary psychology invalid as a research program
> - the truth in the nature/nurture debate probably lies somewhere in the
> middle (as far as I know the "blank slate" of the behaviourist movement
> is no longer taken seriously). But it does mean that practitioners
> should proceed with a degree of caution and humility. Too often they
> don't - they are too often too eager to assume the truth of a
> hypothesis.
> The nature of the subject also subjects the field to an enhanced risk of
> hypotheses being (mis)informed by the participants political and
> religious biases.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
I beg you forgiveness for meddling here.
I often have seen people invoking the topic of the genetic behavior. It is clear, even to behaviorists, that some component of behavior is
determined by genetics. Behaviorist call this "respondent behavior"
But the environment imposes most vertebrates some process of learning. I had been watching a video on crocodiles life after they get out of the egg, and they pass most of its infancy learning something different. I am following the comments from the speaker
of the video that was reading a script. This does not mean, crocos had
not a respondent behavior. Most animals had their own respondent
behavior. You probably had read about that some beetles have some marked color as well as a nasty taste. The comments of naturalist are that the color of the beetle serves as sign to the birds that eat beetles to recall their bad taste. Recorded into conditioned reflexes
on the birds.
I can present many examples of the need many animals need to learn
some facts of life, for they are not wired in their brains. There is Japanese macaque, a land where rattlesnakes do not exist. Some
Texan eccentric took a number of those Japanese macaques to put them in a ranch he had in Texas. The macaques multiplied in Texas
and learn how to cope with the hellish clime of Texas. Then, the learn to refresh in a pond in the heat of summer, while in the winter
of Japan they keep them warm bathing in thermal pools.
Observing the Texan macaques, they were aware that the macaques
emitted a cry of alarm when someone saw a rattlesnake. Then, at
once was evident the question, this cry or alarm is something genetic
or some accidental learning? They wanted to verify that thing. They
recorded the cries of alarm when the macaques watched a rattle snake, and traveled to Japan to observe if the native macaques
reacted to this alarm. They did not. They only looked to the source
of the sound, but do not looked alarmed at all. Those cries had not a particular meaning.
The next question is "is natural to cry when one is alarmed?" Perhaps
it is. The cry cannot have to start with any particular sound. But the
simple cry could made other macaques to look towards the animal
that cry. Then, both conditions, to cry in alarm, could had been a "respondent behavior". And the turning of the head to look at whom
is crying perhaps is also a genetic behavior. Then, from this cry
on, the animals learn to identify the meaning of some cries. Among primates and monkeys exist some elemental sort of language, that like human languages evolve with time. This can be the explanation, why some chimps have significant dialectal differences
for groups separated some 100 miles. I remember I had read this, and other topics on chimps on Nature.
I am not going to enter into a detail argument about what could be
the basic differences between "respondent" and "learned" behavior.
I am going to present you a scene you all had looked plenty of times in TV about wildlife in Africa. Just how some males fight each other at the time of breeding. And how the alpha males stay in territory where the females graze and do not let any other male approach.
Let's us assume that all the males in the time of breeding want to do the same thing. But the stronger male is fighting any other male
that comes to the place where the females are. He probably had
to fight four or five pretenders successfully. Then, the losers accept
their fate and forget about their intentions, after a few trials. The loser animals "had learned" to give up, for they are feeling the pain caused to them by the powerful male. But a group of males of herbivores, depending on the species and the environment, can be as large as 20 or 30 animals. Then, only a few of those males had the inner strength needed to challenge the alpha male. I think this
can be
...
> >>>>> All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to
> >>>>> the Papacy it seems.
> >>>> I believe history, literature, political science, and ethics have gone
> >>>> rather thoroughly into the ramifications of all this without the need
> >>>> to put an evolutionary basis on it. Its application to (and by)
> >>>> modern humans stands on its own.
> >>> I'm presently more interested in the history of Florence at that time.
> >>> But the notion that there could be deep seated cognitive dynamics at
> >>> play is not anathema to me. The manner in which chimps interact in
> >>> groups could have some bearing upon our interactions. Our interpersonal
> >>> dynamic doesn't emerge from nothing.
> >>> I know I get indignant when it seems others are slacking or I'm not
> >>> being reciprocated. Why? I try to trust others, but have had this
> >>> tendency shattered and stay vigilant for the wool being pulled over my
> >>> eyes. Why? I look for charades and facades or what Jung referred to as
> >>> the "persona". Given the peaking of this election cycle the topic is
> >>> even more apropos.
> >> Getting indignant when somebody takes advantage of you is reasonable.
> >> Claiming you did it because some ancient mammalian ancestor puts its
> >> genes into you to make you do it is not.
> >Why do you say this? I find it reasonable to assume that many of my
> >emotional and interpersonal foibles stem from brain evolution.
> >Recognizing those flaws does not make them right.
> >But OTOH these baser instincts can inform our judgment. Or maybe they
> >are not so base if we take Sheldon Cooper as the clueless example who is
> >out of tune socially. Instinct can be wrong, but not always. Emotionally
> >informed judgment could be spot on. I feel you are casually dismissing
> >what I have to say. Is that wrong?
> >> Establishing laws or social
> >> policy that makes taking advantage acceptable because it has a long
> >> evolutionary background is plainly and simply wrong.
> >Is meet your ought. I fear you are projecting way too simplistic a take
> >on this topic. When did I say that I think that the realization of human
> >nature being somewhat flawed at its base means we should be that way?
> >Are you a ventriloquist? We should strive to rise above our baser
> >natures. We should not totally ignore the input. Fear of heights can
> >keep you from falling off a cliff, but it can impede you from enjoying a
> >spectacular scene.
> >The recognition, though, that a wrong *might* be committed does not make
> >that assumption right. This is a pun on might makes right. The
> >interpretation that stems from our so-called Machiavellian intelligence
> >could be wrong. Being evolved as it could be it isn't perfect.
> I have no problem with studying the evolutionary basis of human
> behavior for its scientific value and to help us better understand our
> place in the universe. I do have a problem with using evolution to
> explain or justify what we now do. The Genesis account of Eden was
> exceptionally perceptive in this regard: we humans have eaten from
> the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (metaphorically, in case you
> are puzzled) and with that perception of right and wrong are
> responsible for our behavior.
> Evolution makes us shit and pee but culture indicates we refrain from
> doing so except in special locations and our bodies become subject to
> our will. We make special allowances for those whose bodies suffer
> from defects of disease, old age, and infancy but those allowances are
> also cultural, not evolutionary. There are all kinds of things that
> we may have tendencies towards for evolutionary reasons but culture
> determines that we do not always act except under particular
> circumstances. Agression expressed as violence against innocents is
> punished; controlled agression on the playing field is welcomed. What
> is "base" is not defined by what is "animal" within us but what is
> banned by culture. And it doesn't matter why I am afraid of heights:
> some people are and some are not and that is what matters.
> Incidentally, are you familiar with the argument that Machiavelli's
> Prince was written as satire, not as a handbook for behavior?
I am glad someone challenges a little the assumption that most
behavior is determined by our genes.
It is clear to me, that some humans are genetically predisposed
to feel stronger and even bully to others in school. But even if
theoretically this can be traced to some genetic determinism, it is
also helped by some social complicity. Many of the bullies are
not only (a likely possibility) jocks or footballers, but often are
of good families. Being of a good family can give you some protections from school authorities, and also, some good company.
A bully is never a lone person. A bully is like a little gangster, or a mafia's capo, that is always accompanied by some henchmen.
A bully need some social backup (his aids or henchmen) that gives
him some sense of immunity. Then, it is not only a sign of having
good genes to being a bully, but of having as well some social immunity that gives you to some protection.
Just try to imagine a black man with genes of a bully that is in a social white racist environment.
Let is imagine a college in Pennsylvania, the heartland of the KKK and all white supremacy. They had, for incomprehensible reasons, given a scholarship to a black guy for he is and extraordinary footballer (US football). The collage needs to mount some steps up, for it was getting very low in the league. Well, this black man can see around him all those obnoxious vibrations around. He can perceive the glances of the crowd desiring to give him a sort of a good whipping, to show the great appreciation they have for the black race.
I mean, this strong man, can be on the verge of fleeing this forlorn place. How much the power of his brain could endure his situation in such a damned place? He must feel like shit in this college. He is sure thinking seriously to get out. He is pondering the pros and cons.
Then, the social context must define a lot how one feels, besides the genetic structure of our brain and our body.
Any of you had seen tigers tamed to jump from a table to another and to jump over a ring of fire? Those animals had inherited a wild behavior.
I had seen some parrots rinding on little bicycles for the gift of a peanut after each ride. This behavior is not any decent genetic behavior for a parrot. Why humans would be different?
> In message <k6909j$4j...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes
>> On 10/24/12 1:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> In message <nc8e88llupon5d5rh479u7u12alfvgu...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman
>>> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> writes
>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>>>> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 22 Oct, 11:43, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych: [...]
>>>>>> >I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the
>>>>>> author
>>>>>> >was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
>>>>>> >seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
>>>>>> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
>>>>>> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also
>>>>>> writes in
>>>>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>>>>> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
>>>>>> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
>>>>>> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
>>>>> Well, he makes justifiable criticisms, but it would be foolish to
>>>>> claim - as some do - that evolutionary psychology is *in *principle
>>>>> unscientific. Psychology was always a fit subject for study, but
>>>>> early testing of models and gathering good data was very hard. We have
>>>>> new mathematical tools now, and more importantly, ways of watching
>>>>> brain activity in real time. Psychology is shaping up nicely as a
>>>>> respectable science - altho a generation of just-so story spinners
>>>>> will have to die off for its reputation to really get established.
>>>>> Evolutionary psychology is in the same early stages. In time we will
>>>>> have better tools; perhaps the day will come when we will have good
>>>>> models on how a particular genome would express itself in a particular
>>>>> specific environment. I'm not holding my breath, though.
>>>>> Perhaps we will be able to better establish behavior in various
>>>>> cultures and model backwards to some degree from there, analogous to
>>>>> recreating the Proto-Indoeuropean language.
>>>>> I do think that it's obvious that our behavior is an expression of our
>>>>> genes in the modern world, and that our mind, like the rest of us,
>>>>> grew from ancestral species and their traits. We may never get the
>>>>> history of the mind satisfactorily worked out. A time machine would be
>>>>> nice, he said wistfully.
>>>> I don't mind evolutionary psychologists speculating about the orgins
>>>> of various human cognitive and behavioral abilities. The real problem
>>>> is best expressed by a question raised in that article: "Then why do
>>>> enthusiasts for evolutionary psychology insist that politicians and
>>>> social scientists should pay attention to the evolutionary roots of
>>>> behavior?" It is the intrusion of what is now purely half-baked ideas
>>>> into the realm of law and economics and sociology and education that
>>>> scares me. Even when the ideas become fully baked, we still must not
>>>> write laws or produce educational and social policy based on what
>>>> paleolithic humans may or may not have done. We must root these in
>>>> what modern humans are and how we behave regardless of how we came to
>>>> be the way we are.
>>> There is a long running debate whether human behaviour is intrinsic or
>>> learned. Evolutionary psychology, in practice at least, and I understand
>>> in principle as well, assumes that it is intrinsic.
>> There is a long-running *fallacy* about whether human behavior is
>> intrinsic or learned -- the false dilemma fallacy. Everyone who has
>> even a small overview of psychology (and that includes evolutionary
>> psychologists) knows that human behavior combines intrinsic *and*
>> learned. I'm sick to death of those who continue to put "or" between
>> "nature" and "nurture".
> Is that violent agreement I see?
You better believe it, or else!
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
> >I quit reading about half way through. It seemed to me that the author
> >was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
> >seriously discussing the subject. YMMV.
> The author makes very appropriate, well justified, and important
> criticisms of much of evolutionary psychology. That he also writes in
> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
> article should be widely read by people here and recommend you all do
> so. We could then actually discuss the issues, methodology, and
> conclusions of evolutionary psychology here.
Wit is a matter of taste. I personally found nothing witty or clever
in the part or the article I read. My main reaction was "What an
asshole". Other people have their own taste, which is just as valid as
mine, but I think an author who wants to be taken seriously by the
widest possible audience would do well to avoid being deliberately
offensive (as it appeared to me) towards anyone.
