|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
A "probability reaching unity" is mentioned about 22 times on google. The first mention is this thread, so people looking for what it means will arrive here first. I think it is safe to assume nobody much knows about it, including parsimonious razor. As before, another evolutionist already offered "realization", which is quite more commonly used, and does convey some notion of a point where something goes one way in stead of another.
The jargon in the context is too technical for me to understand, but actually it seems as though the point where a probability reaches unity is an outerbound where things can't actually go one way in stead of the other anymore. So do you know choice exists sure enough to actually investigate it in people, making models of how choices relate to one another? regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
The jargon in the context is too technical for me to understand, but actually it seems as though the point where a probability reaches unity is an outerbound where things can't actually go one way in stead of the other anymore. Things can go either way right up until the point where the probability reaches unity, surely that is the irrevocable point where any final 'realisation' or 'decision' occurs.
So do you know choice exists sure enough to actually investigate it in people, making models of how choices relate to one another? Yes, it is certainly worthwhile investigating why people make choices, it is a large focus in psychology and also behavioural sciences. Why do you think that people don't do this already? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Unless you reference somewhere where it goes one way one time, and the other way another time, at some point where it is said a probability reaches unity, I think it is safer to say you found the point where probability doesn't really apply anymore. Congratulations...
I mean study choice in a technical sense of points where a probability is realised. A study which actually confirms to the idea of several possible outcomes for choices. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
A "probability reaching unity" is mentioned about 22 times on google. And "clitoris" is mentioned roughly 2,420,000 times. We'll see which one the students of the world get worked up about first. "Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late I'm over the rails and out of the race The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears" -Beck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
What is needed is:
1 - some influential theologians writing an open letter supporting "decision" both as a principle in intelligent design, and as an essential part of emotions, and criticizing evolutionary science on these 2 issues for their denial and neglect. 2 - some notable Jewish organization that urges restraint of evolutionary science in light of the history of the holocaust and evolutionism 3 - some populist conservatives bringing this issue in the rhetoric of democracy and freedom 4 - some actual horror cases of eugenics law in China 5 - some wider general movement where the "subjects of study" in evolutionary psychology talks back to the evolutionary psychology researcher studying them 1. The NABT (national association of biology teachers) once retracted a statement about evolution as purposeless, directionless, blind, deaf, and whatnot, on account of criticism of some theologians. About 40 percent of Americans are theistic evolutionists, and the NABT statement inclined towards saying that theistic evolution is false. So they retracted under pressure, not really saying they had made an error. That they couldn't actually measure purposelessness very well. In any case this event showed that theologians have power to influence things. 2. I think evolutionary psychology has a bad name in the Jewish community already, due to the anti-semitic writing of evolutionary psychologist Kevin McDonald. So this makes it more or less clear, that evolutionary psychology is the same sort of thing as social darwinism was before, which is generally known to have been instrumental in the holocaust. Kevin McDonald was rather high up in some evolutionary psychology organization, so it can't be easily excused as fringe science either. So I think it is credible that they might ask for restraint on the part of evolutionary psychology. Since historian Klaus Fischer in his study of the nazi's lifted out the predeterminist characteristic of nazism as the most lethal component, I think it is credible that such a Jewish organization would couple the request for restraint, with an encouragement for research about indeterminacy of human behaviour. But that logic would need a little more explicit backing from a mainstream historian. Historians are moving towards exploring the role of science in the holocaust more deeply, but it is still very doubtful that they would make the link between predeterminist ideology and science. 3. The rhetoric of freedom already has a very strong presence, due to Bush, so I think rhetoric for science to recognize choice may benefit from that. 4. Speaks for itself I guess, some documented cases of forced abortion under the eugenic laws, with some interviews of any of the majority of chinese scientists backing such practices, to put the issue into a more real context. 5. A subject of study has some right to speak out if it can speak out I would guess. Notably scientists already have a terrible reputation how they treat their subjects of study, by the history of lab-experiments on animals. So my guess is yes, people generally would demand that scientists respect their ability to choose in studying them, and do more then just pay lipservice to the idea that they can overcome their selfish genes, or the environment. It would be a popular demand. So you see, it is credible that the evolutionist side actually loses the creation vs evolution controversy, intelligent design being brought in on the back of looking at the appearance of things in terms of historic decisions where the likelyhood of the appearance was set. The point on which it all hinges is holocaust research I think, what historians say about the relationship between science and ideology, and how secure they will be in their findings. There needs to be an ethical kick in the but, for science to reconsider it's prejudice in favor of describing in terms of mechanisms only, and not have one single decision of some magnitude in the entire billion year history of evolution. I think argument alone about the scientific merit of describing in terms of decisions, would not suffice to make scientists shift from their comfortable way of thinking much exclusively in terms of mechanisms. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
What is needed is You forgot: 6 - A demonstrable causal link between real world events and your pet obsessions. "Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late I'm over the rails and out of the race The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears" -Beck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
More a need to find *decisions* within science which as it's consequences has a stimulating effect on ideology, rather then a purely causal link which ignores decisions again.
edited to add: A good point to start would be to investigate scientists attitude towards truth. I much get a sense of ruthlessness, and cruelty in the way scientists regard truth, especially in conjuction with the scientific method, or methodological naturalism. I think some obvious hatefulness of emotion like that needs to be shown to consider scientists more or less guilty of stimulating nefarious ideologies. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-02-2005 11:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
7- Even the slightest hint that Syamsu has any idea about the subjects he is talking about. After X years here, such a hint has not been forthcoming.
8- For Syamsu to actually read a book... any book by Dawkins BEFORE criticizing the arguments contained within. Is it just me or did Syamsu's call for a general student strike attract as many people as a David Hasselhof concert (excluding Germany)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Even the slightest hint that Syamsu has any idea about the subjects he is talking about. Yeah, let's get the guy crawling before we ask him to walk. This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-02-2005 11:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Up until the probability of an event = 1 or unity, there is still a probability that it will have a different outcome. If there are only two possible outcomes then their probabilities are reciprocal, i.e. p(heads)=0.5, p(tails)=0.5. Allowing for a probabilistic universe we can expect to see the probabilities changing as the coin is flipped. The p values will vary, but will always be reciprocal. Eventually the point will be reached where only one outcome is possible, at that point p(heads)=1, for example, and p(tails)=0.
What other possible way is there of characterising the point where something goes one way or another, right up until p=1 there is still a possibility of something going the other way.
I think it is safer to say you found the point where probability doesn't really apply anymore How is that different to what you are talking about? Once a rock goes left there is no possibility that it went right, at least in this layer of reality. The instant when that occurs is when p=1.
I mean study choice in a technical sense of points where a probability is realised. A study which actually confirms to the idea of several possible outcomes for choices. Ahh, you mean the type of study that I have been asking you to provide which would substantiate your claim that the universe is fundamentally indeterministic. I don't think any such studies exist due to the impossibility of providing exactly identical starting conditions. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parsimonious_Razor Inactive Member |
quote: You have failed to demonstrate how your ideas, even if true, would change evolutionary theory or evolutionary psychology imparticular.
quote: Restraint from what? Declaring some groups of people as superior to other groups of people? From advocating the death and destruction of inferiors? Yea evolutionary psychology has a serious problem with this.
quote: Yay! Science by feat and scare tactics! That’s the way to do it!
quote: Right 99% of the subjects I work with are after either the money they get for participation or the class credit. They do not CARE that much about the experiment let alone your analysis of evolutionary psychology. Those that do take in interest after the debrifement often wind up in evo psych classes because they find it so fascinating. Good luck.
quote:Do you even know the DIFFERENCE between Social Darwinism and Sociobiology? Just cause they kinda sound a like doesn’t make them the same thing! quote:First of all, as has been pointed out to you for years apparently, you have no idea what your talking about as far as selfish gene or environment. And second science’s goal is not to make people feel warm and fuzzy inside. quote:That’s a heck of a logical leap. I think sociobiology doesn’t respect choice there for creation beats evolution. By popular demand! quote:The holocaust has NOTHING to do with evolutionary psychology. Unless you have even the slightest bit of evidence to support this? Just a little bit more than rhetoric?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I decided to stick with this thread since it is specifically about evo-psych issues, and it would seem a waste to go through the topic opening process to create essentially an identical thread...
I am going to try and keep this as short as possible. I could get more in depth but I am hampered by the fact that the paper I am responding to is hard copy and I don't want to type in all the details I have problems with. In addition I realize that this paper may not be a good representation of the field of evo-psych as it is today. However it was the paper I read and introduced me to the topic. The paper is: Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological Science, David Buss, Psychological Inquiry 1995, Vol6No1, 1-30
Anyone familiar with the broad field of psychology knows that it is in theoretical disarray. The different branches... proceed in relative isolation from one another, at most occasionally borrowing... a concept here and a method there from a neighbor... Although psychologists assume that the human mind is a whole and integrated unity, no metatheory subsumes, integrates, unites, or connects the disparate pieces that psychologists gauge with their differing calipers. An important new theoretical paradigm called evolutionary psychology is emerging that offers to provide this metatheory. That opener had me reeling from the get go. I tend to view science as a fact based enterprise which picks up or introduces new and larger concepts as they are actually needed to explain a phenomenon or several phenomena, and not the gut feeling of the scientist that everyone ought to be using the same "calipers". This smacked of the same poor reasoning as went into ID, it had an a priori end and wanted to shape facts to fit that end vision. Indeed it even seems to have constructed a "controversy" over which this evo-psych could rally and solve. The article went on to describe the fundamental principles and repeated the same "evidence" over an over like most ID tracts which continue to use the same "analogous" examples. Every time the author noted that these examples did not prove anything but rather suggested the "promise" of evo-psych. Ugh, I wish I could cope and paste every problematic portion in here. But I will try an start the ball rolling from what I view as the field of psychology and explain why it does not appear to require evo-psych to "fix" its problems, nor that I believe it can deliver on its "promise" even if it could help fix anything. The paper continually refers to "psychological mechanisms", these are the basic input generates output black boxes which psychology investigates from various angles. I want to use a bit more useful definitions to get within the box. Essentially we have the brain which is the physical portion or the "hardware" of any mechanism, as well as the mind which is the nonphysical or "software" of any mechanism. While the software may boil down to physical-neural responses, the neurons grow and integrate in nets which provide a greater than the sum of its parts response system which does involve choice of action and indeed changes within neural nets based on additional experience. This makes the response system like software which is limited or constricted by the parameters of the hardware. Thus in any stimulus-response we have an external condition which can interact with the brain and/or the mind. Changes to the brain can effect how the mind functions, yet changes to the mind will not necessarily effect the brain, but rather the program of the mind. I hope we are in agreement up to this point. Some parts of psychology treat the mind or software issues, while other parts investigate the brain or hardware issues. How much the mind collapses into purely brain phenomena is open to debate. Their techniques are obviously different and this seems to be of concern to the author. However I am hard pressed to understand how this indicates "theoretical disarray". Perhaps greater understanding of how hardware and software influence each other is called for, but why an introduction of a wholly new dimension: deep time? Evolution is a purely physical process which takes quite a bit of time to effect a species, even according to punctuated equilibrium theories. The idea that figuring out what psych mechanisms are evolved, and for what reason, does not sound like a useful venture when one admittedly has yet to determine exactly where the physical and the mental interact. Evolution can only select physical properties and so can only effect the brain or hardware system of psychological mechanisms. How many mechanisms are hardwired into humans? From the article I didn't see an indication of many beyond basic body regulatory issues. This would be like studying the lymph glands (another organ just like the brain which can adjust to physical environment in a stimulus-response manner) and suddenly saying we'd be better off theorizing under what ancient conditions humans evolved their specific lymphatic system, when one is still not sure how it deals with incoming stimuli. The author went on to make some pretty bold declarations...
...the key questions {for psychology} become: What is the nature of the psychological mechanisms that evolution by selection has fashioned? Why do these mechanisms exist in the form that they do- what adaptive problems did they arise to solve, or what are their functions? At the core of the debate between evolutionary and nonevolutionary psychologists are their answers to these questions. The key issues of this debate have been obscured by false dichotomies that must be jettisoned before we can think clearly about these issues- false dichotomies such as "nature versus nurture", "genetic versus environmental", "cultural versus biological", and "innate versus learned". These dichotomies imply the existence of two separate classes of causes, the relative importance of which can be evaluated quantitatively. Evolutionary psychology rejects these false dichotomies. All humans have a nature- a human nature that differs from cat nature, rat nature, and bat nature. That nature requires particular forms of environmental input for its development. Let me start by saying if one is going to study evolutionary psychology I am hard pressed to understand how evo-psych can dismiss as false dichotomy gene vs environment, nature vs nurture, etc etc. It seems to me that before one can begin to understand how the biological organism which is the brain has been shaped by environmental conditions over time by selection of positive genetic properties (for a certain environment) one must understand what how much psych mechanisms are dependent on hardware versus software, and especially how software development is effected by genetic selection rather than adapting to an immediate environment. Without that basic knowledge, we are merely conducting pure speculation based on our projecting possible correlations between a "problem" and a "psych mech solution." I guess I should add that evolution does not have solutions popping up in organisms to solve a problem, but rather problems for a specific environment being selected out. The wording of this repeatedly sounded like someone with just enough evolution to be dangerous and not productive. Which raised the question to my mind, how much biology and specifically evolutionary theory is required to enter evo-psych? And I was amazed by the author's distinction, or perhaps I should say exaltation of, "human nature" beyond other animal natures. The basis of evolutionary theory is that organs and features follow a path of development from precursor species to the next. That means human nature must be connected to cat nature, and bat nature, and rat nature at some point, specifically where there branches connect and they shared the same brain system. Again, we are talking about evolution. It would seem to me inherent that if one is going to study the human mind from that perspective it would be necessary to start with the development of the brain system in other species and its capabilities to interact with the environment. The human brain and all of its psychological mechanisms were not formed whole and then evolved to fit uniquely human encounters with the environment. One prominent animal missing from his list was ape nature. They are the closest species to us genetically and share certain similar "natures". Why would human nature not require study of their nature to understand how evolution affected brain function? He goes on to list how we can project the environments which must have shaped our psyches based on what we see today...
An evolved disposition to fear snakes... exists in the form that it does because it solved a specific problem of survival in human ancestral environments...That human phobias tend to be concentrated in heavily in the domains of snakes, spiders, heights, darkness, and strangers provides a window for viewing the survival hazards that our ancestors faced. What the hell is this author talking about? What is a disposition to fear snakes? That is human nature? There are plenty of people, including cultures which do not fear snakes or spiders. Phobias regarding heights and darkness are also odd things to suggest as insights into hazards our ancestors faced. The native American culture in specific were renowned for their lack of fear regarding heights and so employed in early building of skyscrapers. This is not to mention all the people that love to fly or work in tall buildings. Having come from Chicago which has plenty of them including one of the tallest in the world, it seems very odd to say it is a common evolved psychological mechanism to fear heights based on some hazard our ancestors faced. People also have fears of dinosaurs and vampires (or the living dead in general). Truly the fear of the undead is common all over the world. Does this suggest our ancient ancestors were plagued by roaming undead? The author previously renounced cultural examples as a false dichotomy anyway, but he goes on to dismiss the work of sociologists and anthropologists in order to support another pet theory he has for evo-psych in true ID fashion. This example (and the main one of the paper) is male jealousy which he indicates is an evolved psychological mechanism (my emphases added)...
Laws exonerating men from killing adulterous wives are found worldwide and throughout human history, despite myths propagated by some anthropologists that there are cultures in which men are not sexually jealous. Consider this description of Greek culture... {proceeds to quote something from a portion of Greek culture which anthropologists are not referring to}... Daly and Wilson (1988) scrutinized in detail the ethnographies for cultures that scholars such as Margaret Mead, Frank Beach, Marvin Whyte, and others have asserted have no bars to sexual conduct other than the universal incest taboo. Daly and Wilson found evidence for sexual jealousy in every one of these supposedly "nonjealousy" cultures... ...Nowhere are wives shared freely. Paradises populated with sexually liberated people who share mates and do not get jealous apparently exist only in the minds of optimistic anthropologists and their unsuspecting readers. It was actually shocking to me that this kind of trash talk made it through peer review. It was exactly the same sort of pointless diatribe that ID authors use against "darwinists" and their "so-called evidence". First of all, if this guy even understood anthropology (oh yes, like IDists it appears evo-psych can address all fields) he'd know there was no such thing as a "universal incest taboo". That is a myth. While every culture has some form of taboo which relates to sex and relations, there is no universal one. They all differ by culture. You can figure that one out just by reading the bible. As far as jealousy goes none of them were suggesting that jealousy could not exist, and that it could not manifest itself within a relationship. The point was that there were cultures that did not have jealous feelings coming out of sexual unions, including sharing wives. Ironically the author went on to discuss the eskimos and then dismissed that example because the lack of jealousy was based on a requirement of reciprocity... uh, so? If this guy really believes that nowhere are wives shared freely, I suggest he visit some swing clubs. Indeed, why not:Home - Club Paradise? Oh but I guess they must be devolving. Facts are if we look at our closest evolutionary brain relatives, the Bonobos, one finds a lack of sexual jealousy, though there can be jealousy. Hmmmm. But I guess like they conveniently already said, we cannot look at other species to determine what brain functions could possibly be shared. As I said, that was his main example, though he included others such as unlikely analogies between psych mechs and callous production in feet. He then moved on to "implications"...
If the arguments for evolutionary psychology presented here have any merit, then profound and revolutionary implications follow for the conceptual foundations of the core of each branch of psychology. I cannot hope to enumerate all these foundational implications in this article. Nonetheless, it may be useful to give a glimpse of what these implications are for several of the major branches of psychology. All this is yours for $9.99, and if you order now you'll get a free spooge shammy! Kee-rist on a crutch. It is garbage like that which really makes me feel skeptical about the future of science. If this was important, why does it require any implications to be listed by a cheerleader? Why is it simply not happening of its own accord because it is necessitated by gaps in the data which need to be filled, or even between fields in psychology. Now remember that the opening problem was that different fields use different "calipers" to measure problems. What has this added dimension (deep time effects on brain development) done to bridge gaps between the different fields, especially if it has dismissed as false dichotomy the ability to try and quantify (and qualify) the boundaries between the fields? It appears that the author simply wants a backdrop they can all claim to share, because it won't practically effect their work, without actually providing tools for any of the fields to better understand their field! Okay, I'll cut it there. I realize you work in this new field and I just came down on it like a ton of bricks. I apologize for most of my sarcasm, but the fervor of the author brings out that kind of reaction in me. Hopefully you can explain what I am missing, or perhaps what that author was missing, in his discussion of how it actually brings together different fields of study any creates a unified measurement system they can all share. This message has been edited by holmes, 02-02-2005 16:36 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If one was thinking all that "hardware vs software" in OOP terms one can STILL maintain the difference of rational, formal and empirical psychology as long as one holds that we do not have the "object" of Kantian thought.
I didnt quite catch the notion or need for "deep" time but I guess it might be approached aposteriori provided the subject such be given. You questioned this as to "theoretical disarray" or whatever confusions were bound so. Whether this is strickly "memory" as in Von Neumann's idea or programmatic differences of classes and methods is irrelevant to the INDIVIDUALS that would have had to survive the Darwinian algorithm should such change be admitted in the similar. Of course if you insisted on "procedural programming" then all bets are off. The same problem of time would occurr as it does in purely morphological disciplines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I'm sorry. I tried, I really tried, but I just don't understand what you are saying.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) "...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: I recognized that.
quote:the object of your post. quote:basis of any empirical psychology quote:the notion of a DIFFERENCE in soft and hard ware is traditionally associated with Von Neuman's notion of magnetic memory (aka floopy disk, memory stick, hard drive etc) but what is required psychologically need not be this instantiation as to what specific computer notions apply to what particular brain anatomy (what percent is in or out the study underquestioning) quote:I was pretty much with you up to here. so all is well in cyber talk space... quote:see % interalia above. quote:It doesnt and many evolutionary biologists at Cornell make this same problem where there is only perhaps not an empirical psychology but only a "mind", yours or mine say.But it is possible to think in THIS evolutionary mindset process within a purely psychological dimension within mind that already believes in evolution of the soma. And this is what goes on at Cornell etc but I think your point about PE and speciation to be well taken. I wish that would stop the theorizing but instead it leads to 'disarry' precisely thing in question. This is how it was possible for me to find that evolutionary psychology is not really on any better footing that sociobiology. Nonetheless it is studied that way at Cornell even though the only issue was a question put as to the biology by Tinbergen when the laboratory of ornithology opened as to ASK A QUESTION in the animals "perspective". Now it is not a bird but a human who already believes in evolution. I simply said that this only works if the OBJECT in Kant is not admitted existence in the same query. This is not hard to keep going on most campuses even Cornell just now.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024