quote:
One thing before I do, you just suggested there are more studies than the ones you cited. I hope these are the best representative studies. If not, then please get me cites to the very best. I do not want to be addressing weak studies, only to end up hearing "okay, well there are better ones".
The references were the works that defined the area of study. They provide the back drop. There are newer studies that BUILD upon the older studies. There have been other studies that tried to expand and address issue with them, but they are simple expansions of these studies. The foundation is in those studies. So I thought it would be of more value to see these studies then a more specific study that only addressed a peripheral issue of WHR. If you have points that have been raised before, I will wind up citing more research that has tried to address these points. It’s not to say these are bad, but they didn't address every issue that has come up since. If you come to me with your criticisms of the papers, I can then try and find, what I think are the best responses to it, or if there aren't why perhaps the criticisms are not valid. The other point is that you have to show many different angles to establish the preference as adaptive, and it takes separate studies to often do that. So it is more the proponderous of evidence that ultimately shapes how the field views WHR. My aim was background, and I guess we can go from there. That’s my reasoning behind those studies, not that they are the best, or most complete, but I think they are the necessary starting points.
quote:
That has got to be the worst sell job I have ever heard for any theory. EP cannot simply say we don't have to. The fact that we don't have the technology to address the subject accurately at this point in time does not grant EP to turn scientific method on its head and just "look to see what we find".
This goes double when in order to see what you can find you must assume that other disciplines must be wrong or can be dismissed.
You have failed to show me why you have to know exactly the hardware vs. software issues to look for hardwired domain specific functions. The brain is obviously not a complete blank slate; there are obviously some hardwired functions. How important are these to how we think? Well we can begin to answer this question with out knowing at a neuronal level how exactly things work. That’s like saying we have to know the exact muscular contraction sequence in the esophagus before we can say that the evolved purpose of the esophagus is to swallow food.
quote:
I have already been through this and do not feel like you have provided a good enough answer. Unlike all other physical traits (except perhaps the lymphatic system) the brain adapts to the environment it currently is experiencing, including the ability to theorize and so effect itself through introspection. While it is unknown how many decision routines are hardwired, it is clearly known that there must be some.
You seem to be working on the assumption that a lack of known evidence should be treated as favoring more of a cognitive general theory. The same lack of evidence you decree for not being able to show at a neuronal level hardwired brain functions, means that you can not just make a claim that the brain can completely adapt to novel environments and over come all these innate functions through introspection. You have no evidence that this is the case. So you can not assume it as a response. EVERY single complex trait we have emerges from an interaction between the environment, genes and ontological development. Muscles, ligaments, veins, all these things adapt and respond to environmental cues. The ability to adapt to these environments is an adaptation in itself. But evolution defines the boundaries of adaptation. We have constraints, muscles can adapt to load bearing stresses over time, because of evolution, but also because of evolution they can only adapt to so much. I don’t see why this statement is so different from saying the brain is a complex organ shaped by natural selection, the ability to respond to novel environments is an adaptation of the brain, but selection pressures constrain just how adaptive the brain can be. People can like different body fat percentages, but will never prefer a WHR of 1.5 over .7. Adaptation and constraint. People can like different aged women, but will not prefer non-reproductively viable women to reproductively viable women (a 20 year old will be preferred over a 70 year old). Adaptation with constraint. People may prefer different facial hair, facial features, ect. But will prefer traits that signal higher secondary hormonal levels. Because people who preferred, sick, pregnant or 70 year old women did not leave their genes behind.
The brain is not some grand organ that adapts completely to its environment. If that was true, we wouldn’t have nearly the number of mal adaptive traits that we do. One of the central focus areas for some researchers is explaining maladaptive traits in novel environments as being left over from a time in which the trait developed. The brain can not optimize itself in any environment. It is constrained.
I don’t know what to tell you. You link evolutionary psychology to the ID movement, to numerology and a many other areas of pseudo science. I see no valid comparison here. It uses operationalized methods and definitions that you seem to accept in somatic phenotypes but then declare invalid when dealing with the mind. You declare them invalid because we do not have fossilized remains of behavior and because you assume the brain is nearly infinitely adaptable to its environment. I see no problem with the fossilization issue, and its unsolvable, I think the evidence points to the brain not being infinitely adaptable.
Evolutionary psychology has demonstrated a lot of fascinating aspects of human psychology. That’s the key point, evolutionary psychology has a methodology that it has created for exploring these issues from a more top-down design. You say the top-down method is invalid, and approach it from a philosophical angle. If you want to get into that end of it we can have a lovely debate on the Computational Theory of Mind and work from Kant to Marr. But that’s not what this is about. I want to try addressing the science. That’s the whole point, the methodology, like all things is rooted in philosophy, but the question is, does it work. That’s why I think the empirical evidence that has been published is the place to look. If we are finding legitimate adaptations in people, the methodology seems to be working.
™ Version 4.2
