Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 136 of 236 (183349)
02-05-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wounded King
02-03-2005 6:41 AM


Still on about this??
I thought this was hashed out already..lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2005 6:41 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 137 of 236 (183401)
02-06-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by nator
02-05-2005 8:33 AM


I read the first pages, it posits what Dawkins calls elsewhere the selfish gene doctrine, so it's enough already, the basics. Why read any further when the basics are false?
Both Darwin and Dawkins are certifiable apparently, if anyone wants to make craziness into an issue.
regards,
Mohamamd Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 02-05-2005 8:33 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 3:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 236 (183408)
02-06-2005 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Silent H
02-05-2005 6:25 AM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
First of all I think you might be asking more of evolutionary psychology then you are asking of other evolutionary studies. There are no complex traits, somatic or psychological in nature, that we know how we get from genes to the trait. Yet we can infer function and selective pressures for somatic phenotypes and not get too much guff, yet we try and do the same for psychological phenotypes and people go nuts.
Your pigeon holing what evo psych says to some degree. We do not say that people have an intuitive fear of snakes directly. Rather the qualities surrounding snakes makes fear develop more easily for them. Certain characteristics of stimuli are associated to assess risk. And these characteristics have little to do with actual risk. So someone doesn't look at a car or gun or sharp knife and run statistical analysis to determine their fear of it. Rather the processes that derive a fear reaction assess qualities that would have been important in the EEA. Such as: is it biological? is it unknown or known? does it have any features which trigger risks such as sounds, teeth, movements, ect.? What evo psych says is that we use these kind of assessments to determine risk. So when we are faced with a potential threat, and then receive some sort of punishment effect (such as a minor shock) we develop a fear response to those stimuli VERY quickly. The same is not true for novel threats that don't share these qualities.
Many fears, such as the undead, while not direct fears, have characteristics common of biological threats. They are biological, show aggression, involve the disgust factor, ect. Even made up fears share these traits. The thing does not have to be real to create a fear response. That’s not what we are saying.
There is no fear of snakes brain domain, and fear of spiders brain domain. There is a risk assessment area of the brain that is primed to assess qualities that would have been important in our EEA. That’s all we are saying. And the undead have these qualities.
Maybe its time to get into more specifics, you mentioned wanting to know more about the Waist to Hip Ratio. The first problem you brought up is that some cultures hide the WHR by covering the female. That doesn’t effect the evo psych predictions at all. People can choose to do what ever they want, doesn’t make the preference go away. The men in cultures where women are covered are predicted to still show the exact same preference. The stimuli does NOT need to be present for the preference to develop. That’s the whole point.
I have no knowledge of any human racial body type that drastically increases the Waist to Hip ratio. You mentioned preferences for large hips, buttocks and breast, that’s exactly what we are talking about here. The waist to hip ratio is measured by taking the smallest circumference around the waist and the largest circumference around the hip. Then divide the waist by the hip. Human males have a strong preference for a WHR between .6-.8 and post-pubescent, pre-menopausal human females very rarely have WHR above 1.0, except during pregnancy. Men on the other hand are usually larger than 1.0.
The work was done primarily by Devendra Singh. He would show drawings, photographs and various other stimuli to men and ask for attractiveness judgments. While total body fat preferences shifted around the WHR stayed the same. So he could show low body fat, with varying WHR to high body fat with varying WHR. While preferences across the groups for total body fat could change, the preference for the smaller WHR held constant. You can check out some of the papers:
Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Singh, Devendra; Young, Robert K.; Ethology & Sociobiology, Vol 16(6), Nov 1995. pp. 483-507.
Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women's attractiveness. Singh, Devendra; Luis, Suwardi; Human Nature, Vol 6(1), 1995. pp. 51-65.
The second paper found the same exact results in Indonesia and African-American populations.
A cross-cultural comparison of ratings of perceived fecundity and sexual attractiveness as a function of body weight and waist-to-hip ratio. Furnham, A.; McClelland, A.; Omer, L.; Psychology, Health & Medicine, Vol 8(2), May 2003. pp. 219-230.
This paper found it in Kenyan men and British men, exact same phenomenon.
A cross-cultural study on the role of weight and waist-to-hip ratio on female attractiveness. Furnham, Adrian; Moutafi, Joanna; Baguma, Peter; Personality & Individual Differences, Vol 32(4), Mar 2002. pp. 729-745.
This paper added in Greece and Uganda to the mix.
The papers go on and on. The EXACT same phenomenon is found in every culture studied. You also find that women with the smaller WHR have healthier children, children earlier, more likely to become pregnant in any given sexual encounter, ect.
So here we are with a measurable psychological phenomenon in mate assessment that exists cross culturally in basically the same exact way. It is clearly linked to reproductive success and shows clear sexual dimorphism between men and women. The WHR assessments have been shown to be made by women and children too. Both women and children will report a smaller WHR women as more attractive than a larger WHR women.
So what exactly can the WHR tell us about women? Studies are being performed all the time, but we know of for sure so far:
1) Young women
2) Not pregnant
3) Healthy in general
4) High estrogen
5) High fertility (both conception and gestation capability)
It is then hypothesized that men, who preferred smaller WHR had more children and grandchildren then men who preferred larger WHR. This provides a sexually selected pressure for women to exhibit small WHR, but its is a VERY difficult thing to develop. It is an honest signal, and honest signals have great evolutionary import.
But my guess is your issues with all this is saying that men have an evolved preference for smaller WHR. So taking into account all of this, why exactly do you feel we are unreasonable to hypothesizing such an evolved preference?
The food issues you brought up again highlight the issue between current environment and the EEA. Evo psych does not say a preference for fatty food necessitates a mcdonalds on ever corner in every country. There could be very few sources of fat or sugar, and people will eat what they can get. But if you took any one from any culture and fed them something with sugar, and something with out sugar, which do you think they would prefer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Silent H, posted 02-05-2005 6:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 8:14 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 236 (183409)
02-06-2005 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Syamsu
02-06-2005 2:58 AM


what is the "selfish gene doctrine?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 2:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 3:58 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied
 Message 153 by Brad McFall, posted 02-06-2005 2:42 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 140 of 236 (183413)
02-06-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-06-2005 3:42 AM


Read the first page of the selfish gene. Dawkins called it a doctrine in some newspaper article.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 3:42 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 4:01 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 236 (183414)
02-06-2005 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Syamsu
02-06-2005 3:58 AM


I read his whole book. You read the first page, decided you know what it is, but dont seem to be arguing against anything but a strawman. I want to know what you think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 3:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 5:47 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 142 of 236 (183436)
02-06-2005 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-06-2005 4:01 AM


I already explained to you right in this thread somewhere, some of the things I think are wrong with it, and what the selfish gene theory says. Some people just don't read the posts they reply to huh...
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 4:01 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 1:01 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 143 of 236 (183454)
02-06-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-06-2005 3:42 AM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
First of all I think you might be asking more of evolutionary psychology then you are asking of other evolutionary studies.
No, I'm not. There is a difference between a physical feature (or a physical function) and a PM. It is that difference which is driving my criticism and I would hope the criticism of others.
I actually just started learning about EP when I read that paper by Buss, and so my criticisms did not come from anyone else's opinions. I have since learned that Gould was a pretty staunch opponent of EP, but I am unaware of his actual criticisms. Indeed the only person whose criticisms I have read, and only lightly, was Syamsu's.
So let's not get into what other people say about EP and deal with what I am saying. I am approaching it in the same manner (as I see similar problems) as I did ID. While theoretically speaking the field of study is possible, the methodology seems flawed. Certainly in the future we could make headway in that area, but there is a jump from the possibility to other ways of measuring (which are not as certain) to conclusion.
I am starting with the assumption that the brain is an evolved system. As such some PMs began as completely hardwired, with genes and evolution playing the exclusive role of determining PMs, and many or most PMs may still be hardwired.
However, during evolution it is quite clear, and I do not see any ability to dispute this, brain systems developed a "plastic" portion. This is to say brains were able to wire in and rewire new rules. Without that "empty disk" storage and writing capacity, there would be no such thing as learning.
That portion of the brain also allowed for greater numbers of possible interactions. Instead of just environment-individual, there was individual-individual (shared knowledge), and self-individual (introspection/imagination). There was also the possibility that cultures (a sort of uber-individual or collective persona) would impress itself on an individual's experiences and so shape what was written into those empty disk areas.
From what I am reading EP is trying to get down to which PMs are hardwired into humans through their genes and so beyond cultural or individual influence (though still able to be effected by genetic or chemical anomalies in any individual), and further still there are hypotheses constructed as to what environmental advantage played a role in shaping those PMs.
My criticisms are:
1) That this is not plausible given current states of knowledge regarding human brain systems. A much greater understanding of the human brain/mind is necessary from the neurological and developmental standpoint before we can concretely say what PM utilizes hardware vs software... or what PMs were wholly evolved vs adapted by the brain (some PMs may also be a combination of the two).
2) That interpreting the environmental condition under which PMs were evolved is impossible without the same level of knowledge with respect to precursor brain systems (ie plausible animal brain systems analogous to possible ancestors. This is perhaps one of the most intellectually dissatisfying portions of EP.
As far as the first point goes it appears to me that EPs are dismissing the rather obvious counterexamples to that theory, which are individual and cultural differences.
The one thing the evolved human brain has done is allowed individuals to escape the merely genetic hardwired stimulus-reaction scheme to the extent that they can exhibit quite opposite behaviors, despite any possible hardwired underpinnings.
I will research the WHR studies you have supplied and will discuss them in my next post. Let me also propose a different study (which I had just read) that we can discuss. It is the headlining article at the center for EP right now...
Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest, Lieberman/Tooby/Cosmides, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., published online
Thus we can focus on WHR and Morality toward Incest as examples of how EPs study PMs.
I would note that (before I get into specifics) that even if we assume that the WHR studies indicate that there is a preference for certain WHRs, it is hardly an indication that that is what human nature is, since in practice humans have a wide range of preferences for mating that have nothing to do with WHRs. Indeed homosexuality appears to be something that would be against human nature according to EP.
Indeed culture and individual experience can for all practical purposes shortcircuit the hardwired rules and put in place PMs which have little to no correlation to the supposed intrinsic rules.
Thus, as a third criticism of sorts, in an ironic twist EPs are undercutting the most major evolutionary development of the human brain and its effects on the human mind, and thus resulting PMs. Human brains can adapt and so avoid evolutionary dictates or desires.
An interesting counterexample for WHR is the regional and temporal interest in small feet for women which led to foot binding, as well as the zaftig movement which prized heavy set (and that means bellies too) women. If beauty really was as easy as WHR rules, then there wouldn't be whole lines of porn devoted to women beyond those criteria.
In any case, take a look at the morality article and see what you think of its methodology and its findings. I will take a look at the WHR articles.
I will go first in responding to the articles, but I would first like a response from you regarding the nature of the human brain/mind and whether it has plastic or at least "empty disk" capacity at all. You may do that by responding to my overall comments on the human brain above.
If you believe that all human PMs are hardwired phenomona determined by genetics then we may have to argue about that first.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 3:42 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 1:34 PM Silent H has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 236 (183502)
02-06-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Syamsu
02-06-2005 5:47 AM


You have failed to accuratly describe the theory. You created a strawman and argued against that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 5:47 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 1:31 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 145 of 236 (183513)
02-06-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-06-2005 1:01 PM


I've argued this several times before, you will just end up arguing that Dawkins fails to reflect his own theory correctly on page one or so. He says there that selfish genes makes for selfish individuals, and only by exception in limited circumstance does it provide for altruism.
Several people have very insistently argued that this is not the message when you read the whole book, but that just means they are arguing that Dawkins is duplicit, because he says it quite explicitly on page one or so.
edited to add: or maybe you object to my formalizing the selfishness relation as a +/- relation. Of course in Dawkinspeak, this should be worded as goodness / evil. In that sense I'm arguing some strawman yes.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-06-2005 13:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 1:01 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 1:37 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 236 (183514)
02-06-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Silent H
02-06-2005 8:14 AM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
I agree there are areas of the brain that more plastic, empty disk, blank slate, ect. But only part of the brain is, and just how much of our conscious experience and (more importantly) our behavior is governed by interactions taking place solely with in this area is, in my opinion, highly overstated. Yes it happens all the time. But their are areas of the brain which are more hardwired that can govern large areas of our interactions.
To be honest, my interest in incest is very limited, and I have only dealt with a small portion of the literature, we can talk about it if you really want but its certainly not one of my stronger areas.
quote:
My criticisms are:
1) That this is not plausible given current states of knowledge regarding human brain systems. A much greater understanding of the human brain/mind is necessary from the neurological and developmental standpoint before we can concretely say what PM utilizes hardware vs software... or what PMs were wholly evolved vs adapted by the brain (some PMs may also be a combination of the two).
Its your right to want to see more evidence to establish this, but there is a lot of evidence. Dates back several hundred years to the first systematic study of behavioral changes due to brain injuries. There are specific areas of the brain used for specific functions, everyone has roughly the same topographic map of brain area to brain function. Infants are born with a wide variety of skills that they couldn't have had time to learn such as facial recognition processing. And many of these things carry on into adult hood. Preference for symmetrical faces over unsymmetrical faces are found with in minutes of birth, and carry all the way through life. Not to mention many of the things we are finding have no counter point where they are "taught" in the culture. No one teaches people to look for hormonal cues in establishing attractiveness. No one teaches women to prefer different hormonal facial markers across the cycle.
The more evidence we get the better. But I think we have plenty to more than justify that people do carry over domain specific functions from our evolutionary past.
quote:
2) That interpreting the environmental condition under which PMs were evolved is impossible without the same level of knowledge with respect to precursor brain systems (ie plausible animal brain systems analogous to possible ancestors. This is perhaps one of the most intellectually dissatisfying portions of EP.
I disagree. I think if you can show functionally specific adaptations you know the selective force behind it. Whatever something is SPECIFICALLY designed to address is the selective force that shaped it.
quote:
I would note that (before I get into specifics) that even if we assume that the WHR studies indicate that there is a preference for certain WHRs, it is hardly an indication that that is what human nature is, since in practice humans have a wide range of preferences for mating that have nothing to do with WHRs. Indeed homosexuality appears to be something that would be against human nature according to EP.
Indeed culture and individual experience can for all practical purposes short-circuit the hardwired rules and put in place PMs which have little to no correlation to the supposed intrinsic rules.
There are many things people assess when looking at mates. Not just WHR, I am not saying that it is only WHR. There are many really interesting studies looking at hormonal signaling, symmetry, yes even feet size, as mechanism for looking at mates. WHR is just one example. Just because there are other mating assessments doesn’t mean WHR is invalid. Homosexuality is an entirely different topic, and there has been considerable attention paid to it. But homosexual men still will say a women with a smaller WHR is more attractive than a women with a larger WHR.
There is a BIG difference between an individual with a different preference and a culture. If you can find a whole culture that values relatively LARGER WHR (not just body fat percentage but the actual WHR) that’s a problem for the theory. An individual that doesn't isn't.
These are what I call "I-know-a-guy-stories" just because you know a guy that doesn’t like small waists doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't. There is going to be variation, that’s how evolution worked, and if there wasn't variance in the preference for WHR it could not have evolved. But there are not going to be many that view things like this. And no fundamental culture where all people prefer a relatively larger WHR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 8:14 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 6:30 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 236 (183515)
02-06-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Syamsu
02-06-2005 1:31 PM


Okay, so you think the selfish gene idea means people are selfish. That’s what I thought, that’s just not how it is viewed. But you are welcome to continue rallying against a straw man if you like. It certainly has not legitimate concern with evolutionary psychology.
Also there has been a lot that has come out since the Selfish Gene. Ideas advance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 1:31 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 2:02 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 148 of 236 (183524)
02-06-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-06-2005 1:37 PM


I think you are not making a very good risk-assessment of the consequences in the case you are wrong.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 1:37 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 2:09 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 236 (183526)
02-06-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Syamsu
02-06-2005 2:02 PM


I dont think I am wrong, and I dont think the risks are high if I am. If Dawkins proposes everyone is completely selfish he is wrong. And no one believes it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Syamsu, posted 02-06-2005 2:02 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Brad McFall, posted 02-06-2005 2:11 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied
 Message 151 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2005 2:25 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied
 Message 169 by Syamsu, posted 02-08-2005 11:40 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 150 of 236 (183527)
02-06-2005 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-06-2005 2:09 PM


and that how it was that Gould could notice that Dawkins 82 is not the same selfish one of "The Selfish Gene". I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-06-2005 2:09 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024