Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
value of evolutionary psychology?
83 views
Skip to first unread message
RichD
Oct 21, 2012, 11:06:30 PM10/21/12
to
An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb
--
Rich
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb
--
Rich
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Oct 21, 2012, 11:36:30 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 8:08 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>
>
> --
> Rich
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.
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 2:23:22 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 21, 11:38�pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"
He gets a little more specific near the end.
More importantly, considering the caliber of regulars here, a lot of
them might benefit from reading the article. Their knowledge of, and
interest in, paleontology and biochemistry are generally rather thin,
yet these are the two main sources for the overwhelming majority of
evidence that all current life on earth is descended from a few kinds
of primitive unicellular creatures.
The article does not help with that, but it does encourage some
critical thinking of just what evolutionary theory has been able to
accomplish beyond the brute fact of common descent.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
More importantly, considering the caliber of regulars here, a lot of
them might benefit from reading the article. Their knowledge of, and
interest in, paleontology and biochemistry are generally rather thin,
yet these are the two main sources for the overwhelming majority of
evidence that all current life on earth is descended from a few kinds
of primitive unicellular creatures.
The article does not help with that, but it does encourage some
critical thinking of just what evolutionary theory has been able to
accomplish beyond the brute fact of common descent.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Richard Norman
Oct 22, 2012, 2:39:53 PM10/22/12
to
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
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb
or
http://tinyurl.com/8kqt7nk
Ray Martinez
Oct 22, 2012, 2:44:52 PM10/22/12
to
On Oct 22, 11:23�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 11:38 pm, "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:
>
> > >http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>
> > > --
> > > Rich
>
> > 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.
>
> He gets a little more specific near the end.
>
> More importantly, considering the caliber of regulars here, a lot of
> them might benefit from reading the article. Their knowledge of, and
> interest in, paleontology and biochemistry are generally rather thin,
> yet these are the two main sources for the overwhelming majority of
> evidence that all current life on earth is descended from a few kinds
> of primitive unicellular creatures.
>
> The article does not help with that, but it does encourage some
> critical thinking of just what evolutionary theory has been able to
> accomplish beyond the brute fact of common descent.
"brute fact of common descent" (Peter Nyikos, Evolutionist).
> On Oct 21, 11:38 pm, "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:
>
> > >http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>
> > > --
> > > Rich
>
> > 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.
>
> He gets a little more specific near the end.
>
> More importantly, considering the caliber of regulars here, a lot of
> them might benefit from reading the article. Their knowledge of, and
> interest in, paleontology and biochemistry are generally rather thin,
> yet these are the two main sources for the overwhelming majority of
> evidence that all current life on earth is descended from a few kinds
> of primitive unicellular creatures.
>
> The article does not help with that, but it does encourage some
> critical thinking of just what evolutionary theory has been able to
> accomplish beyond the brute fact of common descent.
Dear General Audience:
What our Evolutionist failed to tell you is that the conclusion made
in behalf of common descent ASSUMES discovery of similarity (among
species) and patterns of similarity (among a wide range of species)
MEANS evolution has occurred (past tense).
The assumption is pro-Atheism.
A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
Mastermind.
Ray
RichD
Oct 22, 2012, 4:09:45 PM10/22/12
to
On Oct 22, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What our Evolutionist failed to tell you is that the conclusion made
> in behalf of common descent ASSUMES discovery of similarity (among
> species) and patterns of similarity (among a wide range of species)
> MEANS evolution has occurred (past tense).
> The assumption is pro-Atheism.
>
> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
> Mastermind.
I dunno, Ray, it looks more like the work of a committee to me -
> What our Evolutionist failed to tell you is that the conclusion made
> in behalf of common descent ASSUMES discovery of similarity (among
> species) and patterns of similarity (among a wide range of species)
> MEANS evolution has occurred (past tense).
> The assumption is pro-Atheism.
>
> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
> Mastermind.
--
Rich
pnyikos
Oct 22, 2012, 4:16:04 PM10/22/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
in lights, for quite some time now.
I've made three replies to one of your posts since you left. By a
happy accident, I did the last one just a few minutes ago, and it is
quite apropos of your latest mangling of the word "assumes." Here it
is:
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Peter Nyikos: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
On Oct 5, 4:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 8:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [Picking up where I left off....]
Same here, almost. This is my long-delayed third reply. It's really
time to put Ray's post out of its misery.
A bit repeated from the beginning:
> > > > And then, this God of Ray's spent those 4 billion years creating one
> > > > new species after another *ex nihilo*, but was so lacking in
> > > > originality that each species was just a small variation on an
> > > > existing species.
> > > If these were not as such one might think a chance driven
> > > transmutation process was responsible.
No, they would think God was a really creative creator, interested in
producing a great variety of interesting animals and plants, far
greater than any the earth has ever seen.
Do you have any idea why God did NOT create such creatures as
centaurs? I say what happened is that the fishes that invaded the
land successfully already were down to two pairs of paired fins.
Yet, earlier in the Devonian, there were fish with three and four and
(IIRC) even more pairs of paired fins.
[huge snip to get to unfinished business]
> > > > You seemed to think that being a creationist was just a matter of
> > > > believing that God was the creator of every species on earth. Anyone
> > > > denying that is an atheist in your eyes, so what's the point of even
> > > > getting into such remote questions as how the universe began?
> > > Being a Creationist also involves how the universe began. See Genesis
> > > 1, Hebrews 11.
> > > Ray
> > Then you are being inconsistent in claiming that believing in
> > abiogenesis is enough to make one an Atheist.
> > Peter Nyikos
> No, it is not inconsistent. Abiogenesis is a pro-Atheism position, as
> is DPism.
You've been told otherwise so many times, this has just become a
broken record routine on your part with no reasoning to back it up.
>There isn't any "Don't Knowism" (Agnosticism) in either one.
Yeah, but that's because both are compatible with theism. I've
explained that many times with respect to DPism, using comparisons
with Noah, but that has gone like water off a duck's back where you
are concerned.
Forty days and forty nights of water, to be exact. :-) :-(
> Both assume to know the non-existence of God.
You are in serious denial, just like Ron O and J.J. O'Shea are about a
number of other things.
> Again, I have in my
> preceding answers explained why you like being perceived as an
> Agnostic.
Your forays into amateur psychology are laughable.
> Since I have also unveiled my views concerning Agnosticism
> (= unbelievable ignorance) Atheism is more honest and attractive.
You sound just like the author of the boring "theology" book we were
forced to go through in my freshman year in high school. The author
described various religions and heresies, and when he got to
agnosticism he wrote the following piece of utter drivel [quoted from
memory, so the wording might be a tad off]:
Agnosticism is the timid cousin of atheism. ...
You may have heard of the typical prayer of an
agnostic: "Oh, God, if there is a God, save my
soul, if I have a soul." Normal minds have little
patience with agnosticism.
Au contraire, normal minds have little patience with such superficial
polemic.
Peter Nyikos
============= end of post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0f7699293983c1e8
> The assumption is pro-Atheism.
>
> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
> Mastermind.
superficial polemic.
The evidence is more consistent with various little parts of the
animal, plant, etc. kingdoms being "farmed out" to a heavenly host of
(mostly rookie) angels, each little committee of angels in charge of
creating a little variation on "last year's model" of each of a number
of similar organisms.
Ever hear the joke about a camel being a horse created by a committee?
Peter Nyikos
UC
Oct 22, 2012, 4:20:50 PM10/22/12
to
RichD
Oct 22, 2012, 4:27:27 PM10/22/12
to
On Oct 22, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >was much more interested in tossing off sarcastic one-liners than
> >seriously discussing the subject.
>
> 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.
>
> �http://tinyurl.com/8kqt7nk
> 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.
>
He points out that, if we can understand human
psychology today, there is no need to back track,
except for historical academic purposes.
And, it's largely non-falsifiable. He also provides an
example of cherry picking by its proponents.
--
Rich
RichD
Oct 22, 2012, 4:34:10 PM10/22/12
to
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.
>
> > 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
Dana Tweedy
Oct 22, 2012, 9:26:18 PM10/22/12
to
an assumption, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. The patterns
of similarities seen in all organisms which reflect a nested hierarchy
are indication that living things share a common heritage. Evolution
is the explanation for differences seen between the organisms linked by
common descent. Since evolution has been observed happening in the
present, and the evidence indicates evolution has happened in the past,
it's the best testable explanation for the facts.
>
> The assumption is pro-Atheism.
It's neither an assumption, or pro atheism. Nothing about the fact of
common descent implies, or suggests that the supernatural does not, or
cannot exist.
>
> A better explanation of similarity is the work of ONE Divine
> Mastermind.
not a better explanation, or indeed, an explanation at all. Probably
the strongest reason is that your assumption here is not testable, or
falsifiable. There's no way to determine the existence of such a
"mastermind", and no way to determine what your assumed mastermind is
capable of doing. By contrast, common descent, and evolution have
both been observed, and have known limits.
Nothing found so far indicates that the findings are beyond
capabilities of natural processes, so assuming a supernatural cause is
unwarranted, and irrational.
DJT
Ray Martinez
Oct 23, 2012, 6:02:20 PM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 1:18�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 11:23 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > More importantly, considering the caliber of regulars here, a lot of
> > > them might benefit from reading the article. Their knowledge of, and
> > > interest in, paleontology and biochemistry are generally rather thin,
> > > yet these are the two main sources for the overwhelming majority of
> > > evidence that all current life on earth is descended from a few kinds
> > > of primitive unicellular creatures.
>
> > > The article does not help with that, but it does encourage some
> > > critical thinking of just what evolutionary theory has been able to
> > > accomplish beyond the brute fact of common descent.
>
> > "brute fact of common descent" (Peter Nyikos, Evolutionist).
>
> > Dear General Audience:
>
> > What our Evolutionist failed to tell you is that the conclusion made
> > in behalf of common descent ASSUMES discovery of similarity (among
> > species) and patterns of similarity (among a wide range of species)
> > MEANS evolution has occurred (past tense).
>
> Hey, Ray, you've been gone from that thread you began, with my name up
> in lights, �for quite some time now.
>
> I've made three replies to one of your posts since you left. �By a
> happy accident, I did the last one just a few minutes ago, and it is
> quite apropos of your latest mangling of the word "assumes." �Here it
> is:
I didn't know.
> On Oct 22, 2:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 11:23 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > More importantly, considering the caliber of regulars here, a lot of
> > > them might benefit from reading the article. Their knowledge of, and
> > > interest in, paleontology and biochemistry are generally rather thin,
> > > yet these are the two main sources for the overwhelming majority of
> > > evidence that all current life on earth is descended from a few kinds
> > > of primitive unicellular creatures.
>
> > > The article does not help with that, but it does encourage some
> > > critical thinking of just what evolutionary theory has been able to
> > > accomplish beyond the brute fact of common descent.
>
> > "brute fact of common descent" (Peter Nyikos, Evolutionist).
>
> > Dear General Audience:
>
> > What our Evolutionist failed to tell you is that the conclusion made
> > in behalf of common descent ASSUMES discovery of similarity (among
> > species) and patterns of similarity (among a wide range of species)
> > MEANS evolution has occurred (past tense).
>
> Hey, Ray, you've been gone from that thread you began, with my name up
> in lights, �for quite some time now.
>
> I've made three replies to one of your posts since you left. �By a
> happy accident, I did the last one just a few minutes ago, and it is
> quite apropos of your latest mangling of the word "assumes." �Here it
> is:
Since you failed to answer in a timely fashion I assumed you were on-
the-run, like your evo buddy Kalkidas.
I am going there now to take a look.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Oct 23, 2012, 6:04:44 PM10/23/12
to
Be descriptive.
Waiting....
Ray
Kermit
Oct 23, 2012, 6:50:09 PM10/23/12
to
On 22 Oct, 11:43, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:36:30 -0700 (PDT),
>
> 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:
>
> >>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>
> >> --
> >> Rich
>
> >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
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
> >On Oct 21, 8:08�pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>
> >>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>
> >> --
> >> Rich
>
> >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
>
> or
> �http://tinyurl.com/8kqt7nk
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.
kermit
Kermit
Oct 23, 2012, 6:51:31 PM10/23/12
to
exercise in frustration (or wishful thinking).
Kermit
Richard Norman
Oct 23, 2012, 7:04:07 PM10/23/12
to
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.
Dana Tweedy
Oct 23, 2012, 8:07:27 PM10/23/12
to
that you too are "on the run"?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Oct 23, 2012, 8:12:28 PM10/23/12
to
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.
>
> Be descriptive.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray
DJT
Robert Camp
Oct 23, 2012, 8:42:55 PM10/23/12
to
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 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:
>
> >> >>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rich
>
> >> >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
> >> >> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>
> >> >>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rich
>
> >> >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
> >> 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
>
>
> >>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
> >> or
> >> �http://tinyurl.com/8kqt7nk
>
> >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
> >Well, he makes justifiable criticisms, but it would be foolish to
> >claim - as some do - that evolutionary psychology is *in *principle
> >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
> >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
> 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
> enthusiasts for evolutionary psychology insist that politicians and
> social scientists should pay attention to the evolutionary roots of
> 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
> be the way we are.
enthusiasts actually insist that politicians and social scientists pay
attention (hardly the same as critically endorse)? 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,
"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 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.
RLC
Ray Martinez
Oct 23, 2012, 9:00:05 PM10/23/12
to
Be advised that Dana Tweedy claims to be Christian, and not an
Atheist.
Ray (anti-evolutionist)
Richard Norman
Oct 23, 2012, 11:10:12 PM10/23/12
to
that what he writes makes perfectly good sense.
Even if they didn't make sense, his religious beliefs wouldn't matter.
The only thing that does is what he writes. Many aspects of the way
our bodies work make no sense from the perspective of intelligent
design but do make good sense from the perspective of evolution. Are
you arguing that a benevolent and omnipotent creator deliberately made
a creation intending to confuse and befuddle future evolutionary
biologists?
Ernest Major
Oct 24, 2012, 4:44:25 AM10/24/12
to
In message <nc8e88llupon5d5rh...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
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
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
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
Mark Isaak
Oct 24, 2012, 11:08:33 AM10/24/12
to
On 10/24/12 1:44 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <nc8e88llupon5d5rh...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman
> <r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> <unrestra...@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: [...]
> In message <nc8e88llupon5d5rh...@4ax.com>, Richard Norman
> <r_s_n...@comcast.net> writes
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> <unrestra...@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:
>>>>
>>>> >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.
>>>>
>>>> >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.
>>>>
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".
--
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
Ernest Major
Oct 24, 2012, 11:18:16 AM10/24/12
to
In message <k6909j$4jb$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes
Is that violent agreement I see?
--
alias Ernest Major
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
Oct 24, 2012, 4:09:14 PM10/24/12
to
lack of Christian values.
Note too that Ray loves to claim "evasion" at others, yet he is trying
to evade the point I've made.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
Oct 24, 2012, 6:28:04 PM10/24/12
to
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonfire_of_the_Vanities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian_intelligence
All Western history is but a footnote to Florence and its relations to
the Papacy it seems.
*Hemidactylus*
Oct 24, 2012, 6:47:43 PM10/24/12
to
On 10/23/2012 08:42 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> a witty style is expected for the New Yorker magazine. I think this
>>
>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>>>> or
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Gottlieb
> "It doesn’t make any practical difference exactly how our traits
thought evo-devo was on firmer groundplans, being nothing but a footnote
to Goethe ;-)
> 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 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:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich
>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> An article which throws cold water on on evol. psych:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich
>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/8kqt7nk
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>> Well, he makes justifiable criticisms, but it would be foolish to
>>> claim - as some do - that evolutionary psychology is *in *principle
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>> enthusiasts for evolutionary psychology insist that politicians and
>> social scientists should pay attention to the evolutionary roots of
>> 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,
>> 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)?
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,
disappointed, but it looks like Gilbert has passed away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Gottlieb
> "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
>
> "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.
thought evo-devo was on firmer groundplans, being nothing but a footnote
to Goethe ;-)
Richard Norman
Oct 24, 2012, 6:51:54 PM10/24/12
to
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.
*Hemidactylus*
Oct 24, 2012, 7:22:20 PM10/24/12
to
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.
Richard Norman
Oct 24, 2012, 8:26:30 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:22:20 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
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.
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.
*Hemidactylus*
Oct 24, 2012, 9:00:45 PM10/24/12
to
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.
>
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.
Richard Norman
Oct 24, 2012, 9:21:17 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:00:45 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
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?
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?
pnyikos
Oct 24, 2012, 11:20:13 PM10/24/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
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
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
RichD
Oct 25, 2012, 12:46:14 AM10/25/12
to
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?
>
> >>>> 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?
>
> 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.
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 -
--
Rich
jillery
Oct 25, 2012, 6:26:12 AM10/25/12
to
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.
eridanus
Oct 25, 2012, 1:47:26 PM10/25/12
to
El mi�rcoles, 24 de octubre de 2012 09:48:36 UTC+1, Ernest Major escribi�:
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 determined by genetics. One can feel more powerful than
the other. If the twenty or thirty males would had challenged the
alpha males they would surely made him fail sooner or later.
But an alpha males can be strong enough to defeat three or four
challengers.
You can also consider a mental experiment. A small group of
hunters with rifles kill the alpha male after he had defeated three
or four challengers. Once the first male is killed another strong
male would take the place of alpha male. Some challengers come
to hight the new alpha male. But after this new alpha defeat all
challengers, the hunters with their riffle killed the second alpha
male.
The story can continue and the hunters are killing all alpha winners
one after the other. But then, there is always another male that
want to assume the role of alpha. And so on. My hypothesis is
that the last of the males that are still alive can be able to breed
all the females.
I tell this, for very few people knows that among herbivores
only 13 or 15 % of the males are able to breed at least one time
on their whole life. The rest of the males die being sexual virgins.
Then, a thing is the primary condition "wired in the brain" and
quite another is the results of the behavior under the restrictions
imposed by the social life. For it is clear that the herbivores have
a social life.
Now think of the number of male chimps that never in their whole
lives have the opportunity to breed. Anyone had thought about
that? Is it that those males had not wired in their brains the need
or desire to breed?
Now, I will tell you in a free way, some fragment I read in the book
"War Before Civilization" of Lawrence H. Keeley. He takes a few
pages talking about the warrior culture of the natives of New Guinea.
He talks about an old custom of some warriors going with the head
of an enemy hanging on rope around their neck. An anthropologist
visited an ancient warrior that had still a head of an enemy in his
hut. The old man told the white visitor that "he talked daily" to the
head of his enemy. That the possession of his head gave him some
"magic power" (he used a word that meant this). What do you tell
to the head, asked the white visitor. Then the old men told like a
sample of what he told to the head of his enemy. You were fleeing
fast as a pig as I run after you. You were a fast runner, but my
war mace flew faster than you. My maze broke you a leg than
I could take the pleasure to behead you. Now your head is here
hanging on my hut. All your force is now mine. Your children
had been enslaved and are now the slaves of my children. They
carry all our heavy loads, and do all the hard digging on the
gardens; they take all the roots out to feed my children. So, I am
happy to have your head hear hanging in my hut."
This is more or less a free transcription, for I do not have the mood
to copy the exact words.
Then, you see here a case to be considered. The children of a warrior
chief defeated and beheaded are now slaves of the children of other
warrior. I suppose their had been tamed into utter submission, a
little like all those great black males caught prisoners in some battle
in Africa were enslaved and brought to work in the southern plantations.
Their ancestors were probably some sort of warriors; at least those bigger
and taller. But after being chained for a time they were submitted to an
outrageous slavery. Then, you can see here that all the genetic wiring of
their brain in a short period of time is... like erased, and substituted by
a different program that is "learned".
I was reading a fiction story about near future modern slavery. A
famous college athlete is caught driving under alcohol influence was put
into slavery. He is sold in a public auction and it started his new career
as a slave. As his mind is not yet prepared to assumed the new role, he is
given a severe spanking with a paddle that lasted some three or five
minutes. The experience is terrifying for him, as he his mind was not
prepared for this experience.
Some one asked me, how I thought this worked, and if this looked a
probably experience. I thought, that a punishment like this, is so
terrifying that it erases most of the wiring connexions of his brain.
Then, after some hours of rest, a little residues of his former thinking
start to emerge again, and is severely spanked a second time. My guess
is that after some few more light spanks his brain is almost virgin of
all his previous learned programs. I recalled now the soldiers of
Athens in the war of Sicily, that were taken prisoners and died working
as slaves in the quarries of city where the war occurred. Once they
were chained and enslaved their minds were changing to the rest of
their lives. They even probably spared their mind their torture of
recalling their former lives and families. They slowly become some
sort of robotic slaves, trying to suffer the less in their new state.
Then, you cannot assume that this slaves working in a quarry were
born slaves. That they had a wiring to become slaves. But the social
environment changed their lives abruptly.
Arguments against are welcome. I need to train my brain with
arguments to be alive.
Eridanus
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 determined by genetics. One can feel more powerful than
the other. If the twenty or thirty males would had challenged the
alpha males they would surely made him fail sooner or later.
But an alpha males can be strong enough to defeat three or four
challengers.
You can also consider a mental experiment. A small group of
hunters with rifles kill the alpha male after he had defeated three
or four challengers. Once the first male is killed another strong
male would take the place of alpha male. Some challengers come
to hight the new alpha male. But after this new alpha defeat all
challengers, the hunters with their riffle killed the second alpha
male.
The story can continue and the hunters are killing all alpha winners
one after the other. But then, there is always another male that
want to assume the role of alpha. And so on. My hypothesis is
that the last of the males that are still alive can be able to breed
all the females.
I tell this, for very few people knows that among herbivores
only 13 or 15 % of the males are able to breed at least one time
on their whole life. The rest of the males die being sexual virgins.
Then, a thing is the primary condition "wired in the brain" and
quite another is the results of the behavior under the restrictions
imposed by the social life. For it is clear that the herbivores have
a social life.
Now think of the number of male chimps that never in their whole
lives have the opportunity to breed. Anyone had thought about
that? Is it that those males had not wired in their brains the need
or desire to breed?
Now, I will tell you in a free way, some fragment I read in the book
"War Before Civilization" of Lawrence H. Keeley. He takes a few
pages talking about the warrior culture of the natives of New Guinea.
He talks about an old custom of some warriors going with the head
of an enemy hanging on rope around their neck. An anthropologist
visited an ancient warrior that had still a head of an enemy in his
hut. The old man told the white visitor that "he talked daily" to the
head of his enemy. That the possession of his head gave him some
"magic power" (he used a word that meant this). What do you tell
to the head, asked the white visitor. Then the old men told like a
sample of what he told to the head of his enemy. You were fleeing
fast as a pig as I run after you. You were a fast runner, but my
war mace flew faster than you. My maze broke you a leg than
I could take the pleasure to behead you. Now your head is here
hanging on my hut. All your force is now mine. Your children
had been enslaved and are now the slaves of my children. They
carry all our heavy loads, and do all the hard digging on the
gardens; they take all the roots out to feed my children. So, I am
happy to have your head hear hanging in my hut."
This is more or less a free transcription, for I do not have the mood
to copy the exact words.
Then, you see here a case to be considered. The children of a warrior
chief defeated and beheaded are now slaves of the children of other
warrior. I suppose their had been tamed into utter submission, a
little like all those great black males caught prisoners in some battle
in Africa were enslaved and brought to work in the southern plantations.
Their ancestors were probably some sort of warriors; at least those bigger
and taller. But after being chained for a time they were submitted to an
outrageous slavery. Then, you can see here that all the genetic wiring of
their brain in a short period of time is... like erased, and substituted by
a different program that is "learned".
I was reading a fiction story about near future modern slavery. A
famous college athlete is caught driving under alcohol influence was put
into slavery. He is sold in a public auction and it started his new career
as a slave. As his mind is not yet prepared to assumed the new role, he is
given a severe spanking with a paddle that lasted some three or five
minutes. The experience is terrifying for him, as he his mind was not
prepared for this experience.
Some one asked me, how I thought this worked, and if this looked a
probably experience. I thought, that a punishment like this, is so
terrifying that it erases most of the wiring connexions of his brain.
Then, after some hours of rest, a little residues of his former thinking
start to emerge again, and is severely spanked a second time. My guess
is that after some few more light spanks his brain is almost virgin of
all his previous learned programs. I recalled now the soldiers of
Athens in the war of Sicily, that were taken prisoners and died working
as slaves in the quarries of city where the war occurred. Once they
were chained and enslaved their minds were changing to the rest of
their lives. They even probably spared their mind their torture of
recalling their former lives and families. They slowly become some
sort of robotic slaves, trying to suffer the less in their new state.
Then, you cannot assume that this slaves working in a quarry were
born slaves. That they had a wiring to become slaves. But the social
environment changed their lives abruptly.
Arguments against are welcome. I need to train my brain with
arguments to be alive.
Eridanus
eridanus
Oct 25, 2012, 2:31:02 PM10/25/12
to
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?
Eridanus
Mark Isaak
Oct 25, 2012, 7:42:23 PM10/25/12
to
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Oct 25, 2012, 10:55:18 PM10/25/12
to
On Oct 22, 11:43 am, 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:
>
> >>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_boo...
> 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:
>
>
> >> --
> >> Rich
>
> >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
> >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.
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.
>
> The citation above got truncated. Here it is again
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/8kqt7nk
0 new messages