the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
Locked
1234
1234
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
 
|
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 |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
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 ============================================================ 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 |
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Since the horse isn't quite dead:
Women must have the right to bare their arms without comment https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/19/women-right-bare-arms-canada-prime-minister-kim-campbell "I look at that photo now and see someone who was actually really shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, the opposite of a “look-at-me” beauty queen." On 02/15/2018 08:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Exactly! So, it seems most reasonable to assume that the style of the clothing one wears to an awards ceremony, including how much skin is exposed, has more to do with cultural and clique norms than a "desire to be desired", whatever that may mean. > > On 02/15/2018 08:16 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> It's probably true that there are as many idiosyncratic motives as there are people. But I believe that there are dominant themes in that set of motives. Which begs the question how you know what someone's motives are, including yourself. > -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
This is a good horse. Let's keep it alive. Alas, Glen, the link didn't work. Can you resend it, if it is crucial to my understanding what you wrote. Meantime, I offer the following for you all to stew on: And I have known the arms already, known them all— Arms that are braceleted and white and bare (But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!) Is it perfume from a dress That makes me so digress? Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl. And should I then presume? And how should I begin? Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? ... I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- Since the horse isn't quite dead: Women must have the right to bare their arms without comment "I look at that photo now and see someone who was actually really shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, the opposite of a “look-at-me” beauty queen." On 02/15/2018 08:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Exactly! So, it seems most reasonable to assume that the style of the clothing one wears to an awards ceremony, including how much skin is exposed, has more to do with cultural and clique norms than a "desire to be desired", whatever that may mean. > > On 02/15/2018 08:16 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> It's probably true that there are as many idiosyncratic motives as there are people. But I believe that there are dominant themes in that set of motives. Which begs the question how you know what someone's motives are, including yourself. > -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Hm. It's the same link. And your email program didn't mess it up because I just clicked on it in your response and it worked. Perhaps there's a problem with https? Whatever, here is the full article:
https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/how-to-not-beat-cancer-d0e9571e8792 ----------------------------- Women must have the right to bare their arms without comment Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett The remarks of Canada’s first female prime minister compound a society where women are valued above all on appearance. There is not a day that goes by where I don’t feel grateful for the fact that I am no longer embedded tit-deep in the feminist movement. Though I remain a feminist – my commitment to the cause is unaltered – it is a relief, not to mention immeasurably better for my mental health, to find myself no longer overly concerned with putting a step wrong somewhere and facing the wrath of, well, everyone. “Did you see the fallout from so-and-so’s column?” a friend who is very much still involved in the feminist media circus asked me the other day. “Nope, don’t care,” I replied. She looked at me with wonder in her eyes. Women are so frequently pitted against each other that it feels somewhat disloyal to admit that some of the worst tearing downs to which we can be subject are often from other women – so much for sisterhood. One such example was the time my co-writer Holly Baxter and I were at a literary festival discussing the societal pressure placed upon women to adhere to certain beauty standards, when an older feminist very much of the radical variety stood up and yelled at us for having long hair and wearing dresses. That same year, the Observer published an article analysing the fact that we had both posed for a photo with our hands on our hips. We were accused of “semaphoring the classic pose of the ‘look-at-me’ beauty queen; the unnatural strut of every woman on display for the pleasure of the male eye”. The writer was a woman. Both incidents were humiliating. The reason I drag this up is because of a story about red carpet dressing. German actor Anna Brüggemann has pointed out – correctly – that women actors are still expected to wear tight-fitting dresses and high heels on the red carpet for the purposes of appealing to the male gaze. She has launched a campaign, #NobodysDoll, encouraging women to wear more comfortable clothes. Also this week, Kim Campbell, a former prime minister of Canada, commented that women on television who bare their arms in sleeveless dresses while their male colleagues are covered up in suits “undermine credibility and gravitas”. Oh my God, can we just stop? I am so sick of every woman’s choice, especially their fashion choices, being pulled apart and examined as to whether or not it is feminist. Surely we should have got to the point by now where we accept that, while equality is a laudable thing to aim for, none of us is perfect and not everything we do is going to be ideologically pure. I wish, back in 2014, I had had the courage to say to those women that it is entirely possible to critique a structure while at the same time inhabiting it. In fact, you’re in many ways perfectly placed to do so. But I was young, and terribly insecure. I look at that photo now and see someone who was actually really shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, the opposite of a “look-at-me” beauty queen. Putting women under a microscope like this is bad for us all. It affects the confidence of those being subject to the examination, of course, but more broadly, it isn’t good for any woman. It’s ironic that those who rail against the scrutiny of women’s bodies the hardest so often unwittingly end up piling on that scrutiny. You might argue that the clothes we wear invite scrutiny, that they are signs we hold up to the outside world that attempt to express who we are. This is true. And certainly, a woman in a skimpy dress with lots of flesh on display surrounded by a sea of men in black who are completely covered up will carry a significant visual message to a little girl watching an awards show on television. But to give it undue focus is to treat the symptom and not the cause, which is a society in which women are valued above all on their appearance. Focusing on the fashion choices of a few individual women won’t change that. Working to change attitudes will. Every year a red carpet will see a few badass women who buck the trend and wear a tux, and these women should be applauded. Brüggemann should too, for encouraging women to dress differently if they so choose. But no woman should feel bad because she doesn’t feel comfortable doing that, is simply dressing in the way society has encouraged her to dress, or, God forbid, actually likes her beautiful shoes and gown. Saying this does not mean that I’m engaging in some wishy-wishy brand of choice feminism. You can be wearing high heels or a tight dress and still think sexual harassment is bullshit, just as you can pose with your hand on your hip and still wish women were valued for their minds as much as their makeup. Just as in the “asking for it if you’re in a short skirt” narrative, the focus has yet again been turned on women. We’re in an exciting moment, where male-dominated power structures are coming under scrutiny not just in the film industry but everywhere. Yet we risk wasting that moment if we start to focus too much on the women in the dresses rather than the men whose gazes they are expected to please. And we risk putting younger women off feminism altogether if we teach them that they cannot raise objections to sexism without every aspect of their character and deportment being held up to be torn down. Ask yourself: “What are the men doing while we sit around arguing about this? If the answer is: “Nothing, they’re enjoying a fine scotch and carrying on as normal”, then maybe this is not the hill to die on. • Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist and author -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Since the horse isn't quite dead: I think the horse has barely been flicked with the tip of the quirt... or perhaps it is the wrong horse which we are flogging, or both?
What I glean from former PM Kim Campbell's rant is a parallel to my take on the "problem of PC". I will acknowledge that somewhere along the line, the term "Politically Correct" got co-opted and became a dogwhistle for racist/misogynistic/??? rhetoric. I know there is thin ice near this topic and have stepped through the ice here before. Pardon me for my clumsy mincing here?Women must have the right to bare their arms without comment https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/19/women-right-bare-arms-canada-prime-minister-kim-campbell "I look at that photo now and see someone who was actually really shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, the opposite of a “look-at-me” beauty queen." I think all *deliberate*? change requires over-correction, like most materials with both elastic and plastic properties... one must *overbend* to achieve the final bend one wishes. Having come of age during the height of the Equal and Civil Rights era, I experienced directly and (more often) indirectly these over-corrections. The "token white males" on interview lists for jobs which they would never be selected for, or the occasional "very good man/father" who got raked over the "deadbeat dad" coals by an angry ex-spouse and a overzealous justice system. Statistically, those (ab)uses of their white male status contributed to an improvement in the overall "Balance of Justice", but individually they were travesties, of the same order in many ways as those who we were trying to help with the over-corrections. When one person leans out one side of the canoe, that everyone else leaningout the other side might (temporarily) increase it's "balance" but undermines it's "stability". As father to two adult daughters and grandfather to one young granddaughter, I know that there is still plenty of room for continued improvement, and that will require some continued vigilance and (over) corrections. The recent events and tendencies at the national level (marked well perhaps by the Ferguson MO case, but spiked with the Donald's anti-immigrant/ethnic rants/policies) suggest that there might be even *more* room on the issues of ethnic equality. My biggest task with these "over-corrections" beyond the various personal inconveniences they cause me from time to time (which I'm willing to accept if there is a greater good being served) is when they have begun to work *against* the greater good which they are exhorted to be supporting. I think this is roughly what Kim Campbell is trying to address/redress in her rant. - Steve On 02/15/2018 08:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:Exactly! So, it seems most reasonable to assume that the style of the clothing one wears to an awards ceremony, including how much skin is exposed, has more to do with cultural and clique norms than a "desire to be desired", whatever that may mean. On 02/15/2018 08:16 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:It's probably true that there are as many idiosyncratic motives as there are people. But I believe that there are dominant themes in that set of motives. Which begs the question how you know what someone's motives are, including yourself. ============================================================ 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 |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Hi, Glen,
Thanks for your forbearance in not considering the obvious explanation (}:-(] And thanks also for the whole text. I vaguely remember a Gogol (???) short story from my youth? It begins with unctuous guy-talk about how if you can get a woman to take her shoes off, then you are home free. And then a bunch of dancers come to a party and the first thing they do when they enter the room is take their shoes off. Nothing happens. End of story. (I read the story 60 years ago, so forgive me it I have altered it; I would love to know the truth about my source, here). The question is, "How do we get noticed." The sociobiological question is, do we get noticed because we display some bits of flesh rather than others, or do we get noticed merely because we violate expectations. I would say it's mostly the latter. If you want to be stared at, go to the beach in a tuxedo. And why WOULD one want to be noticed? I suppose it's, "I can't make the sale if I can't make the contact". If so, dressing up is like hitchhiking. If nobody stops you won't get a good ride, but most rides are bad ones. Finding someone who's going where you're going is hard work. . Frankly, I can't imagine "a beautiful pair of heels". They look like torture instruments to me, only slightly less cruel than oriental foot-binding. On the other hand, when deciding whether to take another person seriously on first meeting, I would bet that eye-height factors in. It certainly was a factor with my monkeys. I am trying to think, how do we have this conversation in a way that is not obnoxiously an example of itself. Everything I write on the subject makes me cringe. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 10:28 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology? Hm. It's the same link. And your email program didn't mess it up because I just clicked on it in your response and it worked. Perhaps there's a problem with https? Whatever, here is the full article: https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/how-to-not-beat-cancer-d0e9571e8792 ----------------------------- Women must have the right to bare their arms without comment Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett The remarks of Canada’s first female prime minister compound a society where women are valued above all on appearance. There is not a day that goes by where I don’t feel grateful for the fact that I am no longer embedded tit-deep in the feminist movement. Though I remain a feminist – my commitment to the cause is unaltered – it is a relief, not to mention immeasurably better for my mental health, to find myself no longer overly concerned with putting a step wrong somewhere and facing the wrath of, well, everyone. “Did you see the fallout from so-and-so’s column?” a friend who is very much still involved in the feminist media circus asked me the other day. “Nope, don’t care,” I replied. She looked at me with wonder in her eyes. Women are so frequently pitted against each other that it feels somewhat disloyal to admit that some of the worst tearing downs to which we can be subject are often from other women – so much for sisterhood. One such example was the time my co-writer Holly Baxter and I were at a literary festival discussing the societal pressure placed upon women to adhere to certain beauty standards, when an older feminist very much of the radical variety stood up and yelled at us for having long hair and wearing dresses. That same year, the Observer published an article analysing the fact that we had both posed for a photo with our hands on our hips. We were accused of “semaphoring the classic pose of the ‘look-at-me’ beauty queen; the unnatural strut of every woman on display for the pleasure of the male eye”. The writer was a woman. Both incidents were humiliating. The reason I drag this up is because of a story about red carpet dressing. German actor Anna Brüggemann has pointed out – correctly – that women actors are still expected to wear tight-fitting dresses and high heels on the red carpet for the purposes of appealing to the male gaze. She has launched a campaign, #NobodysDoll, encouraging women to wear more comfortable clothes. Also this week, Kim Campbell, a former prime minister of Canada, commented that women on television who bare their arms in sleeveless dresses while their male colleagues are covered up in suits “undermine credibility and gravitas”. Oh my God, can we just stop? I am so sick of every woman’s choice, especially their fashion choices, being pulled apart and examined as to whether or not it is feminist. Surely we should have got to the point by now where we accept that, while equality is a laudable thing to aim for, none of us is perfect and not everything we do is going to be ideologically pure. I wish, back in 2014, I had had the courage to say to those women that it is entirely possible to critique a structure while at the same time inhabiting it. In fact, you’re in many ways perfectly placed to do so. But I was young, and terribly insecure. I look at that photo now and see someone who was actually really shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, the opposite of a “look-at-me” beauty queen. Putting women under a microscope like this is bad for us all. It affects the confidence of those being subject to the examination, of course, but more broadly, it isn’t good for any woman. It’s ironic that those who rail against the scrutiny of women’s bodies the hardest so often unwittingly end up piling on that scrutiny. You might argue that the clothes we wear invite scrutiny, that they are signs we hold up to the outside world that attempt to express who we are. This is true. And certainly, a woman in a skimpy dress with lots of flesh on display surrounded by a sea of men in black who are completely covered up will carry a significant visual message to a little girl watching an awards show on television. But to give it undue focus is to treat the symptom and not the cause, which is a society in which women are valued above all on their appearance. Focusing on the fashion choices of a few individual women won’t change that. Working to change attitudes will. Every year a red carpet will see a few badass women who buck the trend and wear a tux, and these women should be applauded. Brüggemann should too, for encouraging women to dress differently if they so choose. But no woman should feel bad because she doesn’t feel comfortable doing that, is simply dressing in the way society has encouraged her to dress, or, God forbid, actually likes her beautiful shoes and gown. Saying this does not mean that I’m engaging in some wishy-wishy brand of choice feminism. You can be wearing high heels or a tight dress and still think sexual harassment is bullshit, just as you can pose with your hand on your hip and still wish women were valued for their minds as much as their makeup. Just as in the “asking for it if you’re in a short skirt” narrative, the focus has yet again been turned on women. We’re in an exciting moment, where male-dominated power structures are coming under scrutiny not just in the film industry but everywhere. Yet we risk wasting that moment if we start to focus too much on the women in the dresses rather than the men whose gazes they are expected to please. And we risk putting younger women off feminism altogether if we teach them that they cannot raise objections to sexism without every aspect of their character and deportment being held up to be torn down. Ask yourself: “What are the men doing while we sit around arguing about this? If the answer is: “Nothing, they’re enjoying a fine scotch and carrying on as normal”, then maybe this is not the hill to die on. • Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist and author -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
It seems to me the best way to have the conversation is to see the "women at the GG" topic as the exact same (pseudoscience) as the "alpha male" nonsense invoked by Peterson. Both you and Steve seem to have succumbed to the "every thought is tracable back to some prehistoric evolutionary trait" when you say:
> I suppose it's, "I can't make the sale if I can't make the contact". And Steve talks about an "instinctual response". I'd like to propose that men act like idiots because their peers act like idiots, women wear tight dresses because their peers wear tight dresses ... and teens have cell phones glued to their hands because their peers have cell phones glued to their hands. If evopsych is NOT a pseudoscience, then every pseudoscientific claim made in the NAME of evopsych should be buttressed by a better counter-claim. Perhaps a counter claim for all this "dress for sex" nonsense is that, perhaps we are evolutionarily wired to have (at least some of) our thoughts socially programmed into us by our context. Going back to the squirrels, perhaps our biology wires our thoughts simply to play *games*, the details of which will change depending on the circumstance? I don't know ... I'm just tossing out ideas. And, going back to Dave's questions, do we have a sense for what questions evopsych can and cannot answer? On 02/20/2018 10:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I am trying to think, how do we have this conversation in a way that is not obnoxiously an example of itself. Everything I write on the subject makes me cringe. -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
On 2/20/18 12:14 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > It seems to me the best way to have the conversation is to see the "women at the GG" topic as the exact same (pseudoscience) as the "alpha male" nonsense invoked by Peterson. Both you and Steve seem to have succumbed to the "every thought is tracable back to some prehistoric evolutionary trait" when you say: > >> I suppose it's, "I can't make the sale if I can't make the contact". I doubt that Nick nor I believe that *every* thought is traceable back to some prehistoric evolutionary trait". Speaking only for myself, I'd say rather that every significant behavior or habit that is identifiable across populations with disparate "nurture" contexts is worth considering for a "nature" argument, and those which are less obviously so, STILL might have a measurable "nature" contribution, but not as easy to recognize? Female "display" is the one I identified here. And it *definitely* doesn't rule out precisely what you say in the next paragraph being at work as well. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. > And Steve talks about an "instinctual response". I'd like to propose that men act like idiots because their peers act like idiots, women wear tight dresses because their peers wear tight dresses ... and teens have cell phones glued to their hands because their peers have cell phones glued to their hands. > If evopsych is NOT a pseudoscience, then every pseudoscientific claim made in the NAME of evopsych should be buttressed by a better counter-claim. Perhaps a counter claim for all this "dress for sex" nonsense is that, perhaps we are evolutionarily wired to have (at least some of) our thoughts socially programmed into us by our context. Going back to the squirrels, perhaps our biology wires our thoughts simply to play *games*, the details of which will change depending on the circumstance? I don't know ... I'm just tossing out ideas. I am inclined to agree that "gaming" both in the sense of trying to negotiate a stronger role in a social context and in the sense of more simple "play" are pretty deep in us. But that looks like what you have already (tried to?) dismiss. If you don't like "dress for sex" in any of it's variants as having any validity, then let's talk about "play" or "gaming" and whatever "nature" roots it might have. > And, going back to Dave's questions, do we have a sense for what questions evopsych can and cannot answer? Like most questions of this type, the questions EP cannot answer well are likely diverse and uncountable, so I guess I'd be more inclined to try to outline a spectrum of more/less likely and more/less interesting more/less relevant ones? The question of "dress for sex" (or "success") was on the table, maybe it isn't relevant. On the other hand, I think the history (as presented to us) of earlier ages includes significant male foppery (to use a perjorative term)... huge display via clothing, makeup and even wigs to establish *something* about their role in society. - Steve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On 02/20/2018 12:26 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I doubt that Nick nor I believe that *every* thought is traceable back > to some prehistoric evolutionary trait". 8^) I know. I'm just trolling you. But the bait I'm trying to use is important. > Female "display" is the one I identified here. And it *definitely* > doesn't rule out precisely what you say in the next paragraph being at > work as well. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Right, which is why this is in the sub-thread started by Frank. Artificial discretization seems rampant. Why would we talk about things like "female display" or "alpha male" when there are MUCH more obvious things to talk about like oxytocin and dopamine? As Dave points out, why would we talk about evopsych when we can talk about biology? Feelings of belonging, love, and satisfaction can come from playing blackjack *or* coddling one's baby. Women might show their arms because all the designers make clothing that bares arms *or* because they want to be provocative or both or for other reasons. Why do we feel the need to trace one motivation to biology (and a phylogenetic tree) but not the other? -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
Glen,
Well, the reason we don't talk about oxytocin, or dopamine, or even testosterone, much, is that they aren't behaviors. I really don't give a damn about your testosterone levels so long as you don't punch me in the nose. By the way, we have a friend back east who is constantly looking for new drugs to increase her energy and well-being, and so she decided to try testosterone. After a month on testosterone supplements, she said: "I am surprised you guys behave as well as you do!" Testosterone IS a poison. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 2:16 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology? On 02/20/2018 12:26 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I doubt that Nick nor I believe that *every* thought is traceable back > to some prehistoric evolutionary trait". 8^) I know. I'm just trolling you. But the bait I'm trying to use is important. > Female "display" is the one I identified here. And it *definitely* > doesn't rule out precisely what you say in the next paragraph being at > work as well. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Right, which is why this is in the sub-thread started by Frank. Artificial discretization seems rampant. Why would we talk about things like "female display" or "alpha male" when there are MUCH more obvious things to talk about like oxytocin and dopamine? As Dave points out, why would we talk about evopsych when we can talk about biology? Feelings of belonging, love, and satisfaction can come from playing blackjack *or* coddling one's baby. Women might show their arms because all the designers make clothing that bares arms *or* because they want to be provocative or both or for other reasons. Why do we feel the need to trace one motivation to biology (and a phylogenetic tree) but not the other? -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
On 02/20/2018 02:14 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Well, the reason we don't talk about oxytocin, or dopamine, or even testosterone, much, is that they aren't behaviors. Yes, they are behaviors. When we talk about something like a hormone, we're not really talking about the molecule, are we? Yes, the molecule is part of the conversation. But the real conversation is about the *interaction* of that molecule with other structures in the body. (E.g. hormones behave differently from neurotransmitters ... what makes them different is *that* they behave differently, not so much that their structures are different.) To boot, when we talk about psychiatric interventions like SRIs, we're talking about the behaviors "X reuptake inhibition". So, that they are behaviors isn't even (merely) relegated to physiology. They're straight up psychiatry. > I really don't give a damn about your testosterone levels so long as you don't punch me in the nose. > > By the way, we have a friend back east who is constantly looking for new drugs to increase her energy and well-being, and so she decided to try testosterone. After a month on testosterone supplements, she said: "I am surprised you guys behave as well as you do!" > > Testosterone IS a poison. Heh, the dose is the poison! -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
High heels and platform shoes were originally a male fashion statement. Louis XIV fancied himself a dancer and made skin tight, body revealing clothing de rigueur for everyone at court just so he could show of his beautiful legs. There are numerous cultures — some, who were able to avoid the pollution of missionaries, are still extant — where it is the males who wear beads and feathers and oil their exposed skin to attract females. Ever hear of penis sheaths? how about cod pieces?
With all due respect to Nick — whom I love like a father (well brother as we are not that different in age) — and all the other serious evopsych researchers; I just cannot buy a biological explanation, even a biological-root explanation for phenomena that change in time frames orders of magnitude shorter than those required by biological evolution. An example of the kind of question that I think evopsych could be profitably employed would be: why is it that, in all the hunter-gatherer societies studied by anthropologists, it is the case that women gather and men hunt? A class of questions that could (IMHO) very well be informed by evopsych research: why does welfare beget more welfare? why does sexual suppression beget violence expression (a corollary to the last one would be why does imminent peril increase sexual arousal); why are humans so xenophobic; why do all cultures, including prehistoric, incorporate some kind of belief in the "supernatural?" An answer to the last one might provide some insight into why humans cannot evolve past the need for "God" and "religion." davew On Tue, Feb 20, 2018, at 2:15 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > On 02/20/2018 12:26 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > I doubt that Nick nor I believe that *every* thought is traceable back > > to some prehistoric evolutionary trait". > > 8^) I know. I'm just trolling you. But the bait I'm trying to use is > important. > > > Female "display" is the one I identified here. And it *definitely* > > doesn't rule out precisely what you say in the next paragraph being at > > work as well. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. > > Right, which is why this is in the sub-thread started by Frank. > Artificial discretization seems rampant. Why would we talk about things > like "female display" or "alpha male" when there are MUCH more obvious > things to talk about like oxytocin and dopamine? As Dave points out, > why would we talk about evopsych when we can talk about biology? > > Feelings of belonging, love, and satisfaction can come from playing > blackjack *or* coddling one's baby. Women might show their arms because > all the designers make clothing that bares arms *or* because they want > to be provocative or both or for other reasons. Why do we feel the need > to trace one motivation to biology (and a phylogenetic tree) but not the > other? > > -- > ☣ 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 |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
Freud (bad word) tried to answer the last question in "Future of an Illusion". Frank ---- Frank Wimberly www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Feb 20, 2018 3:41 PM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote: High heels and platform shoes were originally a male fashion statement. Louis XIV fancied himself a dancer and made skin tight, body revealing clothing de rigueur for everyone at court just so he could show of his beautiful legs. There are numerous cultures — some, who were able to avoid the pollution of missionaries, are still extant — where it is the males who wear beads and feathers and oil their exposed skin to attract females. Ever hear of penis sheaths? how about cod pieces? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I realized last night that someone might think my response is either a) moving the goal posts or b) nonsequitur, since it seems obvious that behaviors at the organism layer are categorically different from behaviors at the organ layer. What seems obvious is often misleading. So, I figured I'd follow it up with 2 stories:
1) https://www.wikihow.com/Dilate-or-Shrink-Your-Pupils-on-Command The parry against a gamer who would manipulate your tendency toward pupil mimicry might be to warn them, "Be careful, now, I loaded up on oxytocin before our meeting." (Oxytocin having been shown to increase skepticism about others' trustworthiness.) 2) http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/2013/06/01/burn-baby-burn-the-truth-about-lactic-acid-and-exercise/ Although I think we know it's not the lactate that causes the exercise burn, is it really any *more* expressive to say "my legs started to give out at mile 23" than "I really felt the lactic acid at mile 23" ... or "the acidosis got me at mile 23"? There are plenty of other stories, as well ... like being "hangry", as a pop culture way of invoking ghrelin and/or insulin. Or the "rush" one might get from bungie jumping or slot machines. My point being that the distinction between intra-organism vs. organism behaviors is artificial, an artifice put to good use in rhetoric like the "alpha male" or "female 'display'". On 02/20/2018 02:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > On 02/20/2018 02:14 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> Well, the reason we don't talk about oxytocin, or dopamine, or even testosterone, much, is that they aren't behaviors. > > Yes, they are behaviors. When we talk about something like a hormone, we're not really talking about the molecule, are we? Yes, the molecule is part of the conversation. But the real conversation is about the *interaction* of that molecule with other structures in the body. (E.g. hormones behave differently from neurotransmitters ... what makes them different is *that* they behave differently, not so much that their structures are different.) > > To boot, when we talk about psychiatric interventions like SRIs, we're talking about the behaviors "X reuptake inhibition". So, that they are behaviors isn't even (merely) relegated to physiology. They're straight up psychiatry. > >> I really don't give a damn about your testosterone levels so long as you don't punch me in the nose. >> >> By the way, we have a friend back east who is constantly looking for new drugs to increase her energy and well-being, and so she decided to try testosterone. After a month on testosterone supplements, she said: "I am surprised you guys behave as well as you do!" >> >> Testosterone IS a poison. > > Heh, the dose is the poison! > -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
Glen,
People often talk as if references to internal things ... hormones, etc., are less mediated than references to behavior . Your reference to lactic acid is a good example. "Lactic acid" might be an partial explanation for "legs giving out" but it's not a substitute for it. Psychophysiological explanation, to the extent that its ever relevant, relies on careful behavioral observation and analysis. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:42 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology? I realized last night that someone might think my response is either a) moving the goal posts or b) nonsequitur, since it seems obvious that behaviors at the organism layer are categorically different from behaviors at the organ layer. What seems obvious is often misleading. So, I figured I'd follow it up with 2 stories: 1) https://www.wikihow.com/Dilate-or-Shrink-Your-Pupils-on-Command The parry against a gamer who would manipulate your tendency toward pupil mimicry might be to warn them, "Be careful, now, I loaded up on oxytocin before our meeting." (Oxytocin having been shown to increase skepticism about others' trustworthiness.) 2) http://www.mindthesciencegap.org/2013/06/01/burn-baby-burn-the-truth-about-lactic-acid-and-exercise/ Although I think we know it's not the lactate that causes the exercise burn, is it really any *more* expressive to say "my legs started to give out at mile 23" than "I really felt the lactic acid at mile 23" ... or "the acidosis got me at mile 23"? There are plenty of other stories, as well ... like being "hangry", as a pop culture way of invoking ghrelin and/or insulin. Or the "rush" one might get from bungie jumping or slot machines. My point being that the distinction between intra-organism vs. organism behaviors is artificial, an artifice put to good use in rhetoric like the "alpha male" or "female 'display'". On 02/20/2018 02:24 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > On 02/20/2018 02:14 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> Well, the reason we don't talk about oxytocin, or dopamine, or even testosterone, much, is that they aren't behaviors. > > Yes, they are behaviors. When we talk about something like a hormone, > we're not really talking about the molecule, are we? Yes, the > molecule is part of the conversation. But the real conversation is > about the *interaction* of that molecule with other structures in the > body. (E.g. hormones behave differently from neurotransmitters ... > what makes them different is *that* they behave differently, not so > much that their structures are different.) > > To boot, when we talk about psychiatric interventions like SRIs, we're talking about the behaviors "X reuptake inhibition". So, that they are behaviors isn't even (merely) relegated to physiology. They're straight up psychiatry. > >> I really don't give a damn about your testosterone levels so long as you don't punch me in the nose. >> >> By the way, we have a friend back east who is constantly looking for new drugs to increase her energy and well-being, and so she decided to try testosterone. After a month on testosterone supplements, she said: "I am surprised you guys behave as well as you do!" >> >> Testosterone IS a poison. > > Heh, the dose is the poison! > -- ☣ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Re: artificial distinctions --
Allergy? No. The word "allergy" implies something like an *unhealthy*, more than normal, immune response. My take would be that my (yes, abnormally high) immune response to artificial discretization is *healthy* and appropriate. Those of you who don't have such a high response to it are the unhealthy ones. 8^) Re: obfuscation -- Yes, that's part of the problem with Peterson and his ilk. They are justifying folktale motifs with scientismist jargon, much like the quantum and complexity woo rampant in new age, self-help communities. Re: intra- vs. organism behavior I'm not suggesting there's no reason to distinguish between playing blackjack and fighting. What I am suggesting is that biological evolution is an appropriate explanatory tool for physiology, but NOT an appropriate explanatory tool for behaviors like playing blackjack and fighting. Please note that I'm not *claiming* evolution is inappropriate for such questions ... only positing it as a provocative counter-claim to evopsych claims being made by others. Re: evopsych-appropriate questions I'm not so much asking what we're *interested* in. I'm asking what kinds of questions should evopsych apply to? I'd enjoy seeing a response to Dave's last post, though I seriously question the assumptions he's embedded in them. 8^) In particular, it's not clear to me if the evidence decisively shows that, in all hunter-gatherer societies, women exclusively gathered and men exclusively hunted. The recent discovery that neolithic (?) women's arms were much stronger than we might have thought, shows our inferences from (whatever) evidence can be fragile. But answers to his questions would be helpful, regardless. Going back to physiology or anatomy, perhaps gender role differences can be tied to something like the evolution of the hippocampus, but not to something psychological like "multi-tasking"? On 02/21/2018 10:19 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I think you are overly sensitive to *potential* artificial discretization and perhaps project your fear/resentment/mistrust of it onto some of the statements made here? I take some of this to be a feature of contrarian trolling (in the Socratic sense invoked above), but is it also in some way a personal allergy you suffer? > I don't find Oxytocin or Dopamine any more (and possibly less) "obvious" personally. While I have some storytelling about those two molecules, their source in the body, their effect on neurobiology, metabolism, mood, and behaviour, those stories all depend very much on specialized/reserved knowledge, while the "alpha male" and the "female display" (and similar) stories come from a much larger lore than what you might be suggesting that EP is as arcane/obscure/un(der)motivated as (fairly modern/recent) neurobiology. > Your general line of reasoning/discussion here would suggest that there is no reason to look at the artifice of playing BlackJack to in any way relate to more visceral risk taking such as fighting off a predator with primitive weapons or that the cuddling/coddling of a child shouldn't be considered a deep part of a group-survival instinct of humans (and most/all mammals/warm-blooded creatures)? > If you are asking why we are not interested in the possible selective value of mimicry and adoption of cultural norms but we ARE interested in the possible value of controlling/influencing choice of one's reproductive partner's, I would answer: 1) I think "we" ARE interested in both; and 2) the latter is somewhat more salacious than the former and we *might* look at to EP arguments for preferences for salacity as well? -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
In my last contribution to the EvoPsych thread I referenced the
following paper:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/aristotle-on-trolling/540BB557C82186C33BFFB61E35A0B5B6/core-reader and accused him of "Socratic Trolling". I of course, meant that in the kindest of ways. From the Excerpt:
I have long been aware that what we often call "trolls" can be beneficial to a group, and appreciate the description provided above. I have seen very little *if any* real (destructive?) trolling on this list which I believe remains > 600 strong despite the vocal subset only being roughly a few dozen. I also wonder at the relation between a "Troll" and a "Trickster"... where the Trickster is credited with having both secret knowledge and even sometimes powers. The Trickster is more ambiguous in his/her good/evil role, but the above description of the possibilities within a Troll suggests that a Troll might well have an aspect of Trickster built in. The most obvious shared feature is the ambiguity of in-group/out-group status... which is one of the things that defines a Shaman. In all cases, one must be "insider" enough to understand the in-group well enough to be relevant but "outsider" enough to be capable of having enough perspective and motivation to operate outside of the group norms.
- Steve ============================================================ 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 |
Re: the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
> Re: artificial distinctions -- > Allergy? No. The word "allergy" implies something like an *unhealthy*, more than normal, immune response. My take would be that my (yes, abnormally high) immune response to artificial discretization is *healthy* and appropriate. Those of you who don't have such a high response to it are the unhealthy ones. 8^) Probably just my own "inner Troll" that made that suggestion. I think that using arbitrary thresholds to describe heightened immune responses as "allergies" is *also* an example of "artifical discretization", just how much violent vomiting, sneezing, coughing, or other expellations is appropriate in a given situation is ...erh... "situational". > Re: obfuscation -- > Yes, that's part of the problem with Peterson and his ilk. They are justifying folktale motifs with scientismist jargon, much like the quantum and complexity woo rampant in new age, self-help communities. I have come full-circle on this over many decades, most spent in the mode (as I apprehend it) that you are in... but have come to be more tolerant of some of this kind of conflation. I'm still offended that some (many) use the language of Science to dress up something which is patently not, but in the same vein as "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!", I'm more interested in the outliers which include ideas which might be (partially) right for the (mostly) wrong reasons. > Re: intra- vs. organism behavior > I'm not suggesting there's no reason to distinguish between playing blackjack and fighting. What I am suggesting is that biological evolution is an appropriate explanatory tool for physiology, but NOT an appropriate explanatory tool for behaviors like playing blackjack and fighting. Please note that I'm not *claiming* evolution is inappropriate for such questions ... only positing it as a provocative counter-claim to evopsych claims being made by others. But don't you agree that *physiology* is NOT what is being directly selected for, but rather what is more directly *expressed* from what is *encoded* (genome) (therefore easier to identify/detect/measure). Is it not *function* rather than *form* which is being selected? Isn't that the point of *exaptation*, that one phenotypic element originally selected for around *one* context/utility function trips into another context with an entirely different utility? > Re: evopsych-appropriate questions > I'm not so much asking what we're *interested* in. I'm asking what kinds of questions should evopsych apply to? I'm not sure which hair you are splitting here? I understand that "mere interest" does not a "universal should" make, but in an informal discussion group such as this, I would claim that "interest" and "unction" are nearly identical. > I'd enjoy seeing a response to Dave's last post, though I seriously question the assumptions he's embedded in them. 8^) Example of my point above... your invoking your "enjoyment" suggests that it is equivalent to some kind of "should". > In particular, it's not clear to me if the evidence decisively shows that, in all hunter-gatherer societies, women exclusively gathered and men exclusively hunted. I also find Dave's assertions a little suspect or at least provocative. While I suspect he is broadly correct, that the literature will reflect the truism he referencs (on this specific topic), that doesn't account for a possible (likely?) confirmation bias in the community. On the other hand, I'd be surprised to find that a *very* significant (statistically) bias won't still be evident after adjusting for that. Softening the exclusivity of the argument *barely* undermines the motivation to consider it as a real phenomenon IMO. > The recent discovery that neolithic (?) women's arms were much stronger than we might have thought, shows our inferences from (whatever) evidence can be fragile. But answers to his questions would be helpful, regardless. Going back to physiology or anatomy, perhaps gender role differences can be tied to something like the evolution of the hippocampus, but not to something psychological like "multi-tasking"? Part of what I'm hearing here is the (obvious?) fact that what are often impugned as "the soft sciences" are in fact much harder places to obtain significant amounts of quantitative data, in particular because of the difficulty of setting up controlled experiments and of directly measuring the more *interesting* properties related in the models proposed. I might be persuaded that there is a tendency to over-informalize these domains and tightening them up might be fruitful (indicated), but I am not persuaded that the near folktale/mythological style that seems to come with the territory does more harm than good, or is categorically "wrong". I'm wondering if Nick's early appeal to have this topic discussed without "moving too fast" has been achieved and if we can engage him in (more of) the aspects of EvoPsych that he is most interested in if we haven't in fact run away with the topic (or run over him with our zeal)? - Steve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
No, I don't agree. I had intended to reply to Dave's (twice repeated) question about the speed of evolution with this response. But I'll do it, here, anyway. Remember that I'm not a biologist. So, corrections of what I say are more than welcome. It seems to me that natural selection is multi-grained. Even if we reject the general concept of group selection, I think it's safe to say that something like our "dopaminergic system" can be selected for or against just as well as some behavior like fight or flight. At the very least, we can talk about the speed of evolution in bacteria and the idea that we are covered in, and filled with bacteria (which affects our survivability in the face of what we eat and breathe). But you're right that I would NOT argue that the map from mechanism to phenomenon is simple. Selection is phenomenal. However, the structure of the systems being operated on are not merely 2-layer gen-phen systems. They're a complex convolution of 2-layer systems, some fast, some slow, some tiny, some large, etc., all inter-embedded with each other. The phenomenal "function" of one 2-layer part might well be considered the generative mechanism of another 2-layer part.
So, no, natural selection doesn't simply select function. Even if *technically* true, that's an over-simplification. On 02/21/2018 11:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > But don't you agree that *physiology* is NOT what is being directly > selected for, but rather what is more directly *expressed* from what is > *encoded* (genome) (therefore easier to identify/detect/measure). Is it > not *function* rather than *form* which is being selected? Isn't that > the point of *exaptation*, that one phenotypic element originally > selected for around *one* context/utility function trips into another > context with an entirely different utility? -- ☣ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |