Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 236 (178204)
01-18-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
01-15-2005 10:57 PM


The ground troops for the NWO
Ah yes, as a practitioner of the worlds next global religion I can state that yes our primary goal is to incite racism, worship, and mass chaos in the world at large!
My recent seminar course was entilted "Cults for the 21st century:Controling both the In and Out Group with out them evening knowing it."
Anyway, back to reality, I would like to know what information you are using to develop your prophacies? I work right in some of the most controversial labs and studies of Evo Psych and am exposed to all kinds of vehement attacks from various angles, but leaders of the NWO is new for me. Is this just all made up in your head or are there more than one of you with such ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 01-15-2005 10:57 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 01-18-2005 2:08 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 01-22-2005 4:11 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 236 (178207)
01-18-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by contracycle
01-17-2005 10:12 AM


contracycle writes:
Evolutionary Psychology is more likely to replace the Ayn Rand fans than new age religion. I think it has some fundamental (ideological) flaws; as Oliver James remarked in the observer "This is pure speculation and a politically correct fig leaf for a theory that nearly always ends up supporting right-wing politics (that the poor are poorer, stupider and madder than the rich because of their genes is a corollary of evolutionary reasoning that is rarely mentioned)."
Except that this is completely false and not at all what the science claims. I am actually a very left-wing democratic socialist in my political and economic leanings and most of the people that I know in the evo psych department needed some serious down time after Bush was re-elected.
The poor are poorer because of situational and environmental factors. Evolutionary Psychology recognizes this more than about any other discipline. Because we seek out what is universally common in man. We look at traits that you find everywhere in the world at every social stratosphere. Evo psych is not interested in trying to identify current variance in traits with in a population. We are after traits that have LONG since fixated into our population as a whole.
Very little research is being done about economics in evo psych anyway. In fact my current project, which is unfortunately sitting at the IRB desk for a month, is I think one of the first attempts at gathering direct empirical data about how evo psych can influence economic modeling. The research is focused on time preference patterns and behavior and how evolved psychologies would affect such things. This is a fixated pattern (those with now time preferences usually maximize current reproductive success, those with future preferences invest in future reproductive success). There is no attempt to look at current "selection pressures" or "variance" in the population. There are two groups because of different psychological morphs not because of different genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by contracycle, posted 01-17-2005 10:12 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 5:38 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 236 (178571)
01-19-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by contracycle
01-19-2005 5:38 AM


quote:
It may be ther case that EvoPsych reserachers, at least in your department, do not share this view, but just recently the president of Harvard triggered much criticism by arguing for innate biological differences explaining the absence of women in positions of power. Whether a valid use of the reserach or otherwise, it is being used to advance conservative arguments.
And some people used the theory of evolution to justify the eugenics movement. Some people use quantum theory to prove immortality of the soul. Do these affect the validity of the actual field? If theories were based on how the "masses" understood them all of science would be in trouble.
But as far as the article goes. So what if research shows that there are fundamental differences between men and women in the way they approach certain things. Reproduction is the foundation of selection of sexually reproducing organisms. I would go as far as to say that evolution creates organisms whose top priority is reproduction by its very nature. There has been a gap between the sexes for a VERY long time, much older than humans, much older than mammals. Is it really unreasonable to ask the question: Have the different genders developed different reproductive strategies?
The most basic difference between female and male species in most animals are that females invest WAY more in a successful round of reproduction than the males do. Therefore, we predict that females will be the choosier of the sexes. And this carries through in almost every single species. The interesting thing is that the exceptions to this rule are in species where it is actually the male who invest more. Such as seahorses. So the theory can be said as "the sex that invests the most in each offspring will be the choosiest."
So researchers went out and looked at humans, and found the same pattern. Women are choosier than males. This is almost pedestrian in nature. It is obvious. But it was the first step. It is a basic fact of nature. The only way to deny such a reality is to say that the human mind and psychology is immune from influence in our evolutionary history. Such writers as Gould and Lewontin often take this stand. But it had more to do with their neo-Marxism than science.
The article is putting up a false face for what the research is actually saying:
"Sounds a lot like gender stereotypes today: a species of aggressive philandering men and nurturing, monogamous women. (Much cited research to bolster this view by David Buss, Ph.D., a leader in this field at the University of Michigan, found that male college students who were offered the chance to sleep with a beautiful stranger that night, were more likely than their female counterparts to say yes.)"
First of all the quoted study does not lead to the conclusion that men are aggressive and philandering or that women are nurturing and monogamous. The study was a simple example of the idea that the major investor in the species is choosier.
Actually, most of the research that I am involved in right now, is looking at why and when women are NOT monogamous. Monogamy is not viewed as "natural." And women actually use multiple partners in a very specific reproductive strategy.
Ultimately though, all of these articles and all of these people that don’t like evolutionary psychology because it says there is a difference between men and women need two things. The first is a dose of reality. There are differences and a lot of it is in our genes. The second is to study up on the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to be. Evo psych is not pushing a political agenda.
This message has been edited by Parsimonious_Razor, 01-19-2005 12:54 AM

Science Blog: Attention Required! | Cloudflare

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by contracycle, posted 01-19-2005 5:38 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 236 (179356)
01-21-2005 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by contracycle
01-21-2005 11:02 AM


Re: just a clarification...
If you have read much Pinker than you should realize that the claims of neuroplasticity are greatly exaggerated.
I presented a talk recently to a conference on neuroscience and stroke recovery about some of the "hottest" research on brain plasticity and what it means for conversion of function.
Basically very little. You can sometimes transfer function to areas of the bran that are already similarly designed for the same function. Most famously and robustly you can often wire the optical nerve to the audio cortex and still get okay vision. But the audio and visual cortex function very similar. Its like saying the fact that a scooter can be converted into a skate board with only minor changes means that a Volkswagen bug can be converted into a Boeing 747 with only minor changes.
Brain plasticity, at the moment at least, doesn’t really deserve the world "plasticity" in there at all.
Also Evo-psych research is beginning to do exactly what you are asking. You have to realize we are just now beginning to enter a period of technological development that even allows us the ability to non-intrusively study how the brain is working in humans to the precision needed in evo-psych.
I will bring up one study that is going on right now that I am peripherally involved in. A researcher found a brain structure in female mice that is used to assess testosterone features in male mice and is activated during her estrus period. The research found almost the same exact structure in women and preliminary research using FMRI has shown that it appears to be functioning in almost the same way. So if we also have a homologous behavior between female mice and women with testosterone assessment during estrous. The means we have both a brain structure corollary and a behavior corollary. Now as with all things nothing is proof but the science is getting better and better.
This is just the beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 01-21-2005 11:02 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by contracycle, posted 01-24-2005 11:43 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 236 (179358)
01-21-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PerfectDeath
01-21-2005 1:19 PM


Re: groupings and what evo-psyc is.
Its about a WHOLE lot more than sex, food and sleep. There are a lot of different ways its being utilized. I am using it for developing economic models for example.
But a lot of it is sex, food and sleep. But a question: how much time per day do you devote to either participating in or thinking about sex, food and sleep?
Believe it or not those are some pretty important things to people. And for good reason!
And don't get too deluded by Maslow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-21-2005 1:19 PM PerfectDeath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Syamsu, posted 01-22-2005 11:47 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied
 Message 27 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-22-2005 2:16 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 236 (179673)
01-22-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
01-22-2005 4:11 AM


Re: The ground troops for the NWO
Do you believe all people who are poor made decisions that made them poor? Or are there some people who are poor do to factors outside there direct control?
But beyond the various roles of decisions and environment there is a more fundamental misunderstanding with what evo psych does. Evolutionary Psychology (as opposed to its closely related but fundamentally different fields of evolutionary anthropology) focus on what has been deemed ultimate causes rather than proximate causes.
Things that operate in the life time of the individual and on specific individuals are proximate causes. Evolution can offer little to nothing to say about these various proximate causes unless they some how relate directly back to selectional mechanisms in the past.
A common example is sea turtles eating plastic bags. The existence of the plastic bag and the sea turtle eating the plastic bag are not described in evolutionary psychology. The only thing that might play a role is the selection pressure that lead to the hunting and consumption of food.
So in humans evolutionary psychology it is not interested in focusing in on individual choices or novel circumstances. Such as the role of playing too much video games and company downsizing. These are proximate and novel circumstances. Evo psych says these things are very important, but it is not the material that we study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 01-22-2005 4:11 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 236 (179676)
01-22-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Syamsu
01-22-2005 11:47 AM


Re: groupings and what evo-psyc is.
You left out the part where you develop operational definitions for these phenomenon and figure out how to objectively measure it. Also create a set of predictions about what you would expect to find if your ideas are true.
Then you perform various experiments in cultures that are still in a hunter and gather society, and some low-technology agrarian societies.
Develop why these things would provide an evolutionary advantage and find ways of showing the development using what is known about our ancestors. Look for similar behaviors as derived features in animals that are either phylogenetically close to us or that have similar social environments to provide selection pressure.
If your studies of low-technology cultures, past development and derived characteristics all meet with the predictions you made from your original hypothesis you can move on to trying to identify the same trait in modern societies.
Once you have experimentally showed the same traits in modern societies you are close to having a strong hypothesis.
But now you can't claim right or wrong as derived by this hypothesis. Science doesnt give you morality. That is the naturalistic fallacy. So if you now want to push an agenda about how we need to change society to look more like our hunter-gather social units you need to abandon science all together. At this front you need to argue using more general philosophical and soft science approaches like demographic and GDP data to show people who use your system perform better.
Evolutionary psychology doesn’t just make up a story and publish it ad hoc. Your first major error. There is a lot of solid experimental work and field work that goes into every one of the strong theories that have been developed.
Evolutionary psychology doesn’t claim to derive the "correct" way to do things. In fact VAST amounts of space are taken up in books for popular culture and class time discussing the naturalistic fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Syamsu, posted 01-22-2005 11:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 2:13 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 236 (179678)
01-22-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PerfectDeath
01-22-2005 2:16 PM


Re: groupings and what evo-psyc is.
Well there are a couple things going on here. The first is what I call the "I-know-a-guy-stories." You run into these all the time in various fields as arguments against patterns or theories. But they have two flaws. One they are never very specific, so hard to know exactly what’s true or not or any details needed, and two they often describe the extreme examples of the bell curve. An example is "I know a guy that smoked 6 packs a day but lived till he was 90 and never got cancer." These kinds of arguments can't really be used against the pattern that smoking seems to cause cancer.
Now more specifically in your example, there is a HUGE area of evolutionary psychology that is dedicated to describing these kinds of social interactions. Reciprocal Altruism and cheater detection are some good examples if you want to explore it. Cosmidies and Tooby out of the University of Santa Barbra are leading a lot of that research.
It looks at ideas like why do strangers trade goods when there is a time barrier involved (i give you goods now and you pay me back later). Why people risk their lives for strangers or ideals, ect. If you want to fully explore these ideas feel free to start a thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-22-2005 2:16 PM PerfectDeath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-22-2005 3:13 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 236 (179846)
01-23-2005 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PerfectDeath
01-22-2005 3:13 PM


Re: random stuff
A lot of people do have a major misunderstanding of evo psych.
And you are never too young to start wading through peer-reviewed literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-22-2005 3:13 PM PerfectDeath has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 236 (179848)
01-23-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Syamsu
01-23-2005 2:13 AM


Re: groupings and what evo-psyc is.
At root the selfish gene is simply the idea that selection can work on genes rather than individuals. It’s a simple concept that can be used to explain a wide range of behaviors especially non-selfish actions. The "selfish gene" is how we develop altruism in the first place.
Evolutionary psychology attempts to examine mostly unconscious drives and desires that influence our behaviors. How that happens at a per individual level is not explained by the theory. This is where proximate factors fit in, such as choice. But on average across the species you will tend to see certain behaviors more common than others because of these drives.
That’s all. There is no desire to push the right or wrong of these drives. In fact, many of the drives are undesirable and one of the first steps to preventing them is recognition and understanding of what exactly is going on.
I have found in my personal life that evolutionary psychology has helped me understand and manage many areas of my life for the better. I have become more understanding of my self and others which has allowed me CONTROL over my actions. It has given me MORE choice.
So realizing a particular behavior is driven by evolved psychology doesn’t provide me an excuse to simply give into it but rather even more power to over come it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 2:13 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 4:34 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 236 (179851)
01-23-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
01-23-2005 4:34 AM


Re: groupings and what evo-psyc is.
Its not the individual that is selfish, but the gene. And "selfish" in thie respect means that it doesnt care about the individual it resides in but its own propogation. This can lead to very unselfish behavior in the individual, in fact this is the only explanation for such things as neoptism.
Just because I CHOOSE to use evo psych ideas to improve my life doesnt mean evo psych is making a value judgement. You are saying that it can be used to justify behaviors, I am saying it can be used for overcoming the same behaviors. The fact that it can be used equally for both ways shows in and off itself that the science isn't choosing sides. We as individuals do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 4:34 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 236 (179852)
01-23-2005 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
01-23-2005 4:34 AM


Just a thought
Just out of curiosity have you actually read The Selfish Gene?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 4:34 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 9:31 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 236 (180331)
01-24-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Syamsu
01-23-2005 9:31 AM


Re: Just a thought
Okay, you feel I am not addressing your points. Which I am trying to do. So I must be missing exactly what you are saying.
Help me break this down point by point so far what I have is:
--You think evo psych is trying to provide a meaning or purpose for life that uses scientific certitude.
--You think evo psych legitimizes evil actions or serves as an excuse for them.
--You think researchers in the evo psych departments are evangelical in there enthusiasm for there research.
Okay so those are your main points right? Have I described them correctly?
Can we agree to not use Dawkins ideas for a while at least. We seem to be talking past each other. Lets directly address your main points, if I have them correct.
This message has been edited by Parsimonious_Razor, 01-24-2005 18:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Syamsu, posted 01-23-2005 9:31 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Syamsu, posted 01-25-2005 5:47 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 236 (180681)
01-26-2005 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Syamsu
01-25-2005 5:47 AM


Re: Just a thought
First of all I was talking just about us and our discussion regarding Dawkins. Actually, all Dawkins did was describe in a popular literature book ideas in the field of evolutionary biology that date back sometimes 30 years before he wrote it. I don't think we agree on the message behind the book and don’t really think it matters to much for the discussion at hand. It was a complicating factor and I thought it best to ignore it for the time being.
There is not a single evolutionary field that views behaviors a purely a gene ---> action scenario. It just isn’t the case. There are MANY things that affect that relationship. There is an influence of genes on behavior but it is not an exclusive influence. And there is not a single published evolutionary psychology paper that says otherwise. Try and find one, Google Scholar and No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.pubmed.org are some free to use easy accesses sources to abstracts.
Much of evolutionary psychology is the study of choice and how we make decisions. What the theory says is that in any given day we do a lot of things on autopilot. We aren't consciously thinking of every choice we make or every thought we have. And the evolutionarily evolved psychological modules have a major effect in this area. But any individual at any time is free to ovecome these mechanisms by choice or otherwise.
There is nothing intrinsic in the field that says whether any evolved psychology is good or bad. But outside the direct science a lot of the "applied" research is how to OVERCOME your impulses not give into them. Check out "Mean Genes" for a good example of that. It’s an applied evo psych book for the general public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Syamsu, posted 01-25-2005 5:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 01-26-2005 8:46 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 236 (180831)
01-26-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
01-26-2005 8:46 AM


Re: Just a thought
quote:
action=0
threshold=100
do while action < threshold
if random(fight, flight)=fight
fight=fight +1
flight=flight-1
else
flight=flight +1
fight=fight -1
endif
action=max(fight, flight)
enddo
You do realize that such an approach would be deadly? That if you RANDOMLY decided to fight or flight our days would be fucked up. Oh look there is lion. My random fight or flight isn't activated, opps I am eaten while staring at the sun. Oh there is a lion, my random FIGHT is activated opps my claws aren’t as big as his claws I am dead again.
There are certain things in the mind and body that are VERY reflexive. Some are completely reflexive. Do you remember to keep your heart beating? Do you have any significant control, using just your mind now (no running in place), to raise or lower your heart rate a significant level. It can be done but it is VERY difficult. The fight or flight mode of the body is not a good example to argue choice because the brain often reacts reflexively to significant dangerous. If a lion jumps out you have a reflex reaction to activate your sympathetic nervous system. It would be VERY difficult not too. Because we need FAST action not deliberation.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t have choices even in such a case. We can override any function, if we need too. For example if you are hunting a lion your reactions are going to be different than if you are gathering plants and have no friends or weapons. Does the lion see you? Again your actions are likely to be different depending on the answer to that question. What evo psych says in the this example is that we all have a reflexive fight or flight response to dangers and stressors, the sympathetic nervous system is activated quickly and unconsciously because our those of our ancestors that reacted that quickly survived better. That’s it, what you choose to do after that evo psych doesn’t say. It doesn’t say you will always fight, always run, or go hide, call for help, shoot with your gun, show your kid hey look at the lion in that exhibit, ect. What the proximate factors are at the time determine your specific actions. Evo psychy does NOT attempt to describe what each individual does in each circumstances. It looks to describe wide patterns that we all hold. So the true evo psych computer program would be something like this:
if dangerlevel > critical(
do "sympathetic nervous system response
do assess environmental factors at the time
do assess prior knowledge and understanding of the situation
do think about action to be taken
do action chosen
else
do "what you want"
end if
Notice this makes a terrible computer program, because the human mind doesn’t fit into simple functions. Concepts such as quickly assess ones environment, examine stored knowledge and come to a quick decision are not programmable concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 01-26-2005 8:46 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 01-26-2005 10:03 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied
 Message 62 by contracycle, posted 01-28-2005 6:50 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024