Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?

Posted by Pieter Steenekamp on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/the-pseudoscience-of-evolutionary-psychology-tp7591207p7591236.html

I'm not a psychologist but I currently work in the field of AI deep learning and this is modeled on the human brain, so let me comment on Dave's question from my insight I developed working in this field.

In addition to the evospych component of human behavior, the human brain also works like a "scenario simulator/tester". Our evospych component is similar to those find in other animals, but the  "scenario simulator/tester" is practically unique in humans. It's strong in humans and very weak or absent in animals. The brain's simulator has a model of the world to simulate different scenarios and compares the outcome to select the action resulting in the best outcome. The actual behavior is then a combination of evospych (instinct) and reason (using the simulator).

Just an afternote on my work. The current mainstream AI deep learning does not have a "scenario simulator/tester", it merely uses artificial neural networks that learn like the brain's neurons learn. The scenario simulator/tester is new groundbreaking work spearheaded by Demis Hassibis of DeepMind (owned by Google). I'm not an academic, I use the same structure for commercial applications. In my work, I also include an ABM model as part of the  "scenario simulator/tester" to model human behavior to do dynamic pricing.  

On 16 February 2018 at 23:15, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another question for Nick
  -- does evolutionary psychology hold that every psychological behavior is explainable, at least in principle, or are some behaviors / some psychological states outside the purview of evospych? For example, is the an evolutionary explanation for the observed behavior that people generally drink red wine at room temp and white only when chilled.  If not, what is required to elevate a behavior to a "trait" worthy of the attention of evopsychs?

davew

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018, at 10:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
>
> Excellent contribution!  Thanks, Nick.
>
> Of course, your arguments, in this letter, are primarily academic.  So,
> they won't grip the populace in the way Peterson's have (unless you
> launch a marketing campaign like he did, of course).  But I found the
> biased sample argument plausible as something which *would* grip the
> public, especially with this President and the #metoo stuff.
>
> I believe (though I'm often wrong) Peterson's arguments seem closely
> parallel with the sexual gamers, pick-up artists, who try to game the
> mating game.  It's akin, I think, to the "power pose" concept or,
> perhaps even the "smile to be happier" thing.  In Peterson's case, it
> amounts to "act successful, and you'll have more sex."
>
> Your two arguments: 1) that we'd expect a "curvilinear" relationship
> between success and more partners -- from which I infer some sort of
> saturation curve, and 2) justificationist studies will tend to self-
> select towards posers, combine to form an argument that might grip the
> public, in these times.
>
> Women (and men) should be understood as complex enough creatures so as
> to be capable of spotting the gamers.  Even *if* Peterson et al are
> presenting some sort of essentialist truth (while squinting from the
> window of an airplane), too many details have been removed for their
> self-help woo to be true in any concrete circumstance.
>
> My goal, however, would be to formulate a counter-hypothesis, perhaps
> based on the detection of defectors ... an evol. psych. counter-
> hypothesis.  Perhaps the detection of *lies* is rooted somewhere in
> biology?  Renee' mentioned the other day that some squirrels are
> defectors/gamers and they'll simply watch the industrious squirrels as
> they stash their nuts, then the defector will go dig up the stashed nut.
> So, some industrious squirrels have developed a lying technique where
> they pretend to bury a nut, then run off to bury it somewhere else.  It
> seems we could formulate a testable, evol. psych. hypothesis that claims
> men and women who are authentic tend to be happier and have more babies?
>
>
>
> On 02/15/2018 11:58 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Here is another paper <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247372033_Oh_no_Not_social_Darwinism_again> much shorter (only 600 wds)  and better Xeroxed, which exemplifies my contempt for this latter sort of evolutionary psychology.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove