The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

I was actually avoiding this thread as it looked to be a syamsu hates evilution topic.However my gf is in psych and I happened upon an article on evolutionary psychology, and came away quite unimpressed. Indeed it felt to me like a quasi-religious impression of evolution as justification for behaviors.I am a skeptic at heart and most of the commentary for why this "new paradigm" was necessary for psych, seemed more emotional than science based.Anyhow I will avoid specifics at this point. What I wanted to say is that this paper kind of gave me an incentive to check the thread out.I am glad to see that an evo-psych person is in the thread as I would like to ask some questions regarding problems that I have with it... at least what I saw as being described as the "new paradigm".Let me know if you are interested in continuing with this thread or if you are burnt out at this point from banging your head against one of EvC's brick walls.I promise I have a grounding in science (including some psych as part of my sociology background) and will not be using a marxist approach to criticizing evo-psych. In fact I have no idea how I would begin to do that.I'd lay out some issues right now but it is almost 1am and I should be in bed already. If you are open to more discussion/defense of evo-psych I'll write more tomorrow.

---

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)

Oh, I agree. I have addressed such issues as have many others. It is just that I have discovered I do not end up anywhere meaningful when discussing topics with you and so am ignoring you.There are times when you have very insightful and lucid commentary and I enjoy reading those few and far between posts, for the most part however (and definitely when trying to have a meaningful debate) your posts reduce to the inciteful and lurid.Improve your game and I will start dealing with your posts again.

---

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)

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 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... 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... 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)... 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"... 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)

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)

Okey doke. I got a good 80-90%. Ironically enough that specific paper has a section explaining why the author does not believe in sociobiology.

---

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)

You could start by telling me what that symbol is at the end of the sentence and what it means. I'm getting used to smiley faces at this point, but I had not seen that before. You have no idea how relieved I am to hear that, however the paper was given out in a university psych department in order to help students learn about evo-psych. Perhaps you could recommend a better one and I'll have my gf pass it on to the profs. Don't worry, I am not talking about souls. Within the above grouping is the source of most of my issues. Let me try and restate it more clearly.The brain (in any organism) is an organ for motor and system activity, it is a stimulus-response decision making apparatus, ranging from automatic decisions (hardwired or instinctive) to choices of decisions (perhaps hardwired groups but ultimately the final choice is not hardwired).From an evolutionary perspective the brain must have started with a certain form of stimulus-response mechanism (assumption being hardwired) and as species evolved growing increasingly complex with additional stimulus response coverage as well as allowing for options of responses based on stimuli.For some species it grows even more complex as the brain is allowed to reshape (rewire) itself based on stimuli-response-resulting new stimuli. That added dimension of neural activity was an evolutionary change in the brain which occured... when? I am not sure we even have that pinned down that this point.This new ability creates the blank-slate phenomenon you mentioned. While a human will have certain inherent stimuli-response pairs, or choice groupings hardwired in (indeed some abilities such as spatial assessment may not form until after birth, but will do so naturally as part of body development) many other psych mechanisms are the result of neurons or neural nets forming and reforming due to inputs from the world and are not inherently going to happen.Thus we start with a piece of hardware which is the brain, with some decision systems an inherent part of that brain. How it exists in that form and the inherent decision systems hardwired in would obviously be evolutionary products.First problem (at least for Buss), this was not a "human" issue, or we cannot talk about it belonging to a "human nature" and what human ancestors (or should I say human-like ancestors) faced. We have brains which are descendent and products of responding to wholly nonhuman-like lifestyles.For all we could know a hardwired (assuming this) predilection for liking light and avoiding darkness is due to an earlier ancestor's need to stay within oxygen richer, or nutrient richer waters and light (up) was the key to staying in those bounds. It is projection or sheer speculation to assume it originated in an environment humans currently inhabit.But lets move on from the purely hardwired issue. Evolution at some point change to allow it a greater than hardwired response system, whose responses would be wholly due to evolutionary selection, and allowed for adaptation during existence. Thus there was a section of brain devoted to being a "blank slate" or maybe it is better to use the computer analogy of "empty disk" which rules could be written to based on stimulus-response-resulting stimulus.That immediately creates a dilemma for a person studying pysch mechs (lets call them PMs) in that a certain section of PMs will be adaptational and not evolutionary in nature. The fact that a PM may be common, may have only to do with the fact that most members of a species have common environmental backgrounds, or that basic pathways of interaction between two systems will generate a common stimulus-response grouping.Unless evo-psych is advancing that the evolution of the brain is Lamarckian as opposed to Darwinian, then the rules written into the empty disk portion cannot possibly be effected by evolutionary selection. Even if WHR selection provides a better chance for offspring for males, if it was initially a software program, its success could not have been passed down to male offspring.As brain systems became more advanced, more layered, it gained stimulus-response-resulting new stimulus- response- resulting new stimulus etc etc. That is what allows for actions based on future assumed events, as well as forms of self awareness. The basic brain does not have all decisions hardwired in, but grows them as it gains experience.I suppose the more advanced brains have moved from stimulus-response decision making systems, to stimulus-response and storage decision making systems.Yet again, more has just been added to the plate for anyone looking at PMs. Interactions and possible sources of environmental input have moved from purely external interactions, to internal hypothetical reflection. Without this we cannot get people who have phobias of totally fictional creatures (products of pure imagination), nor love of (or obsessions toward) completely nonexistent objects.The increased level of human introspection also allows for greater degrees of human interaction. That is where cultures may become writers on our empty disks just as much as the physical environment or singular human interactions.And once again, we are left with the fact that evolution can only work on genes which determines how the brain may function physically. Genetics may add a new stimulus-response hardwire on its own, or it may add a new level of complexity in how a brain will handle stimulus-response-new stimuli, and evolution can select those for advancement. But unless the brain is a Lamarckian system, good choices arising from the software written in the empty disk portion cannot be passed on, even if they do allow for greater offspring.Thus there seem to be many problems facing evo-psych at this stage. It appears near impossible to determine what is an evolutionary product from merely assessing commonality or speculating on primitive environmental advantages which might be had.It appears to me the only way we can study evolution's effects on the brain is to get into almost pure neural studies and discover what is hardware (or hardwired) and what rules are software. And unless we find that from one generation to the next that software is able to be written into brain growth DNA for hardwiring the next generation (Lamarkian evolution), anything software is off limits to evo-psych.Once hardware components are determined we can trace them back through similar nonhuman ancestors and show how the brain and its hardwired systems (as well as storage and interaction capabilities) grew, then speculating on what environments may have selected the new systems for adavantage.Otherwise it seems to me we are simply speculating from existing PMs how they might have been genetically shaped by speculative environments through speculative evoultionary mechanisms.Hmmmmm. Let me end this here. I realize I just left a bunch of your post unanswered but I think we may be better off starting from this more clearly stated set of issues. Definitely feel free to use WHR or jealousy examples (used in your previous post) if you want to address the above with examples.Once we move beyond the above problems for studying evo-psych, it will be easier to address specific evo-psych theories.PS- When I spoke of the mind being software which is greater than the whole, I was trying to get at the fact that multiple layered decision systems which allow choices, and can interact with itself (introspection of rules), anyone interacting with the system will see something greater than simple collections of stimulus response, even if when looked at the brain is a system wholly neuronic "fire/notfire".Thus the human brain is the physical hardware with some sections of hardwired response and other sections devoted to empty neural disk storage and writing systems, while the human mind is the collective "system" of both hardwired and newly written and stored (and perhaps only temporarily written) decision making rules.

---

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)

I must not have told my story well enough, as this was exactly the story I was trying to tell. I was trying to say that the brain system started purely hardwired (simple) and grew to more complex levels of hardwired systems, eventually (at what point we do not know when) developed areas of the brain which were open to creating new rules due to environmental interaction. This is what you are refering to as areas of plasticity.It is of course possible that there is very very little plasticity, and most decision making areas are purely hardwired and the plasticity is simple reconnections from some hardwired "groups" to other hardwired "groups"... kind of like crossing cables to different computer systems.This does not detract from my point, indeed it solidifies it. We do not have accurate knowledge of the functioning of the brain system now, much less how it functioned in precursor species to draw accurate analogies. The best we have are speculative analogies. This statement is problematic for me. It is almost identical to what ID theorists claim for their own scientific field, and my reply is the same... if research in an area required before making positive claims within the stated scientific field being advanced, why is it necessary to study or advance that scientific field at all? I realize it is interesting in a speculative way, but such things are easily clipped by occam's razor when it comes to the general field.Once we get significant knowledge of how psych mechs (PMs) are developed in a brain system, just like significant knowledge of biochemical systems of cells and precells, then we can start discussing accurate study of change over time. This is of course an interesting study in comparative biology, specifically of brain structure, and has ramifications regarding hardwired nature of some PMs.But every PM is on a case by case basis, and it is a bit of a leap to go from the brain using testosterone cues in mate selection, to the prevalance of phobias regarding snakes. The latter has so many more levels of possible interaction between the environment and the brain, that it would be much more difficult to assess whether it is adaptational (to environment, culture, etc) or evolutional (hardwired and then selected for).If Buss's article had not leapt toward the more generic and broad PMs, I would have been less agitated by his work, and it is suggestions that we are anywhere near such an understanding to announce evo-psych at that level of assessment is plausible or helpful, that make me wince.It really appears to me that the best that can be said is that the doors have been opened for a greater analysis into the debate of genes vs environment, nature vs nurture, regarding PMs, and after that is significantly concluded... and compared to equally understood brain systems of relevant ancestors... we can move into evo-psych.The idea that the brain is evolved does aid in arguing for comparative brain biology studies, but that is still neural in nature, and not positing what PMs we see now are hardwired. It is of course possible that we lost a hardwired "decision" and the plastic section commonly recreates it due to common (and coincidental) environmental effects.Indeed I think that is one of the similarities between EP and ID that I am seeing. You find a plausible connection between PM and an advantage in a speculated environment, or a direct correlation between a hardwired PM in a near ancestor and a PM in a human, and thus we can make a conclusion of any kind?That seems like much too large a step. Let me repeat this to be very clear, I am not advocating the position that the brain is wholly empty disk. Indeed it is possible that it is almost entirely hardwired with the only adaptational changes being changes in links (cables) between separate predetermined (hardwired) decision groups.My argument is we don't know enough about the brain to make definite statements regarding this, and that is why EP is premature at best.I will say this however, no matter what level of proportion of decisions are hardwired, it is also pretty damn conclusive we are not 100% hardwired. There is some proportion of empty disk space which gets filled up with some sort of rules. Otherwise we would be as alike as other animal species in our functioning. I think this is vastly overstated and where EPs need to stop trying to undercut anthropology just to try and make points. Cultures have been found to be vastly different, especially as one moves back through time where cultural interaction and imposition was not a factor. Within 100 years it may be possible that there is no cultural diveristy outside of minor sub-cultures, but that is because everyone will be dealing with a near identical cultural environment.Mating rituals and assessments do vary. Indeed I would like some good links to that WHR study as it seems rather inconsistent with my own understanding of sexual attraction. Some cultures (it would seem) cannot have such prefs as actual forms are obscured by required clothing and even by racial body type. For example thai and chinese girls generally do not have similar whr to western women, yet are found attractive. And some cultures preferred very large hips or breasts.As far as food preference goes, have you ever had Kim Chee? Heck, have you ever smelled Kim Chee? I remember an asian friend of mine was eating something either japanese or korean and the look on her face was that of absolute revulsion (my cue to her look of "disgust"). She absolutely loved it and I later found that food was actually a culturally popular item and the facial look (which is commonly seen as disgust) was one of enjoyment!On the flipside the like/dislike of coriander seems to be genetically linked to a specific racial grouping. And even that is particular to europe, though it is perhaps a lack of early exposure to coriander within that cultural population which makes it unpopular? I dunno. I am also a bit skeptical on this item. How was it determined that the neural system is specific to language acquisition and not simply pattern recognition which allows for language acquisition as a side effect? I do get this point, but the fact that it can occur does not justify conclusions based on what I am seeing conclusions being based upon (ie PM popularity combined with speculative advantages within speculative environments for speculative ancestor). And that is where the problem exists. I admit it seems a likely conclusion that there are many many hardwired PMs within humans, or at least hardwired groups of decisionmaking rules which result in PMs based on environment.Yet there is a huge gap between arguing that and what evolutionary reason generated, or likely generated, any particular PM.You gave the example of a hand. It is true that people believing in evolutionary theory will believe that its form was genetically derives and influences by selection on function.But the hand is not like a brain in one very crucial way. It is not capable of changing on its own due to environmental influences in order to work better within them. That is the hand is incapable of "learning", the brain is.Let us say hands did have this ability and so could combine digits or remove them at will based on need, say to help climbing if one found onesself needing to be in trees, or swimming if one were to become aquatic for a while. Then we could not as easily discuss any particular temporary handshape as having come from a specific evolutionary environment. The best we can say is that the hand's greater plasticity was an advantage evolutionarily and so was selected for.Any current hand shape could be adaptational (the possibility resulting from evolution of plasticity and coincidental form mimicking another species' limb shape), or evolutionary (the hand remembers or has stored previous ancestor limb shapes and simply shifts into them). I have yet to see this for most PMs, at least in any way that cannot also include common environmental adaptation or cultural interaction.Once again I will mention that fear of the undead or anything unliving, and a belief in the afterlife and powerful entities beyond human life is extremely common (more so than fear of snakes I'd think)... does that suggest our ancestors dealt with these creatures on a routine basis?

---

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)

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 onlineThus 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)

It is not necessary for behavior to take place solely within those areas to negate any real effect that evolution plays, or... more importantly for scientific investigation... throw off our ability to detect hardware vs software driven PMs using appeals to commonality of PM in population correlated to a speculative environmental advantage.It will take a greater neural description of what are hard and which are plastic areas of the brain and what specific PMs are found in those regions. Well I didn't choose it because it was of interest, only that it was the top example paper they had at the website for the center for EP. I do not know more than the single paper they have listed there. I would want to discuss only that paper as an example of EP methodology for discussion.However I will start with an analysis of a couple of the WHR papers you cited. I have read two already and will have a post dissecting them tomorrow or Tuesday. As it turns out I found them as flawed as the incest/morality study so they will be good examples.In the mean time I want to address the counterarguments you have raised. The fact that areas of the brain are specified for certain function does not change the lack of knowledge we have regarding hardware to software. Neither would the fact that damage to areas can wipe out specific functions permanently (so that plasticity of empty disk areas are not completely usable for all tasks).All that baby PMs indicate is what I have already granted, which is that there can be hardwired PMs. What is unknown is whether anything outside of infant reactions are hardwired, or whether (another possibility) some initially hardwired PMs become disabled and replaced by software according to cues (outside stimulus or growth stages). The fact that a PM may be shared by adult and infant does not mean a change has not taken place.Damage to the brain may prove that certain empty disk areas are assigned for certain tasks, but does not undercut the fact that software may be written and run in those functional areas. This seems impossible since the eyesight of children is not good within hours (and I believe days) of birth, can you please give me cites for this. As far as preference for symmetrical faces, I have always wondered at the overspecificity brought to bear on this topic (I have seen shows on this though it was not discussed as EP).It appears to me that most people have a preference for symmetry in general and so the fact that that would carry over into facial preference seems only logical. The fact that we like symmetry may also just be a preference for things which would be easier for our minds to process and make sense of. A nonsymmetric image is distorting an uncomfortable to view, and I would have to say the same goes for a face.Is this not a logical explanation? Do you not realize that that is a circular argument?What one must ask is if a PM is genetic in origin, and if so can we trace it to the specific species in which it originated, and if so which environmental factor helped it stand as an advantage.What you are doing is assuming that each and every PM is the result of genetic mutation and selected for by an advantage, and so whatever logically possible advantage a PM might serve becomes a logical probability for being the reason for the PM. Circular.Evolutionary theory allows for features to appear and even change for absolutely no reason whatsoever, the main thing being that it is not a disadvantage to reproduction. How can we know that a plausible correlation between a PM and an advantage we can see is nothing more than a coincidence? Indeed how can we know it did not appear earlier or later due to different conditions altogether and has hung on because it doesn't play a disadvantage though it produces a PM effect we can correlate to something else?I am having a very hard time with interpreting popularity in population as a PMs being hardwired, and interpreting logically possible advantage in a speculative environment as being a likely evolutionary selection mechanism. Actually I do understand this, I was simply trying to point out culturally determined criteria which can override whr (as well as any other inate) preference filters.So far almost all of the EP material I have read have dismissed or drastically downplayed the significance of cultural pressures on forming PMs. Instead they suggest that at best it is cultures reinterpreting PMs. Of course how they determine this?And in any case what is the difference between saying this is human nature or this is human nature plus cultural reinterpretation? In the end doesn't that say that what we see as a human being and that beings PMs are culturally derived? It seems to matter little whether the culture wrote on an entirely blank slate or reworked a not so blank slate. I did not see this borne out in the papers you cited (maybe it was in the third). But I will get to those in the next post. I don't think you are understanding the weight of my argument. There are whole cultures of people that have in the past and now still do prefer larger WHR. You may call them a subculture, or cultural fad, but they exist.But there is more to the problem than simply the existence of subcultures. If your theory is that preferences are genetic in origin, then any deviation must be genetic in origin as well. Thus whoever mates with a selection difference should potentially pass it on in mathematically calculable ways.It seems to me that would be a much more valuable way for EP to start staking a claim. Find those that would have deviant PMs, then track whether offspring also carry those deviant PMs, especially if the offspring were raised outside of the influence of the parents, or better yet the culture (or subculture) of their parents.This is another part of the problem I have with EP, it suggests deviant PMs, or should I say the variation of PMs we see, are mainly genetic mutation in origin. That seems highly unlikely given that many PMs seem to manifest themselves given exposure to cultures or environmental experiences, rather than from birth.You do not have to address whr specifically as I will deal with that tomorrow.

---

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)

I think you were missing my point. The idea was about visual preference. The statement is that we can measure "beauty" by looking at symmetry in faces.Well that does not discount that what the brain is doing is not just face specific or beauty specific, but judgement of beauty stems from a desire or greater ease of processing of symmetrical imagery by the brain. Thus we are not talking about a beauty PM, but rather an image processing routine which has the side effect of influencing our judgement of beauty (among other things).That would remove odd theories such as symmetrical faces are an indication of greater X which results in better child bearing probability and so that was reinforced.As far as liking how trees look, I am unsure how one would judge a tree more beautiful than another but my guess is using imagery the more symmetrical trees will be judged more beautiful, though I admit there are other factors which could take precedence like color or texture or relation to other environmental objects.If you are talking about liking trees in general, then that is a completely different subject altogether. There are many other factors than visual cues which influence preference in actually enjoying a thing. For purposes of this discussion it was simple visual cue "programming".But the latter also raises an interesting counter to the whole whr study. Humans base their mating on more than just visual cues and as it is humans are seen in many more poses and directions than the few directions seen in the cards. It seems to me the most they got, if they even got that, was a sign of what prevalent attitudes there are for determining attractiveness based on 2-d images. I

---

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)

I was waiting for us to iron out the theoretical end of EP, before moving into specific example studies to look at methodology.I am ready to move into that. As I said I have read the incest/morality paper and two of your whr cites. I just do not know if this will be useful to talk about if we have background issues that will keep cropping up.For me some of the theoreticals we are discussing have a direct impact on methodology.I will address the points you made in this latest post here. If you are hesitant to discuss them further, I will address the whr studies, though like I said I have a feeling some of the same issues will end up coming back to haunt us.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".1.Issue-We don’t know the relationship between hardware and software 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.I am now interested, what do you see as a difference between this and ID, besides it's end goals? It appears the methodology is the same.2. Issue-How do you know it is an adaptation and not some other thing (exaptation, spandrel, cultural factor) 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.Without an accurate distinction between what is adapted to current environment, and what is inherited through evolution, connecting correlated "popular" PMs with evolution is speculative, and made worse by speculating on possible environmental factors they were keyed for.I think I deserve a better answer on how EP addresses the possibility of adaptive vs evolved areas. Percentages, correlation, and speculation do not seem to be enough.3. Issue-You can not know the selective environment in which something developed EP is making quite a bit different type predictions than EBio. And I will repeat that PMs are known to adapt within the environment, which make them different than physical features.We can look at the horse and see changes in hooves or height over time. Same for the physical human form. While some of it may very well be speculative, we have a firmer physical trail to follow. This is almost entirely missing with EP.I do agree that some dino hunters are a bit goofy launching into speculations on exactly what lifestyles certain animals had, but even this carries a bit more physical evidence (like nests and things). Just to let you know, the actual phrase is "the proof is in the tasting of the pudding". That was mentioned in a pet peeves thread at EvC.My problem is that when you start by saying that we don't have the technology yet so lets start making top-down predictions instead, you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. If we don't have the technology yet then why not work on advancing the technology, rather than dropping straightforward methodology just so you can start in on the theory now?Anyone can make predictions, find correlations, and so claim they have advanced knowledge. Numerology is filled with this. Science, to me, demands a bit more meat on the skeleton when you decide to say knowledge has been advanced.Why does popularity within a population rule out software? How does correlation to a predicted advantage actually mean causation?Okay, so I'd like a bit better explanations for how EP works past the issues it faces, rather than hearing "same for those guys", or "we say we don't have to".If you have nothing else, and are sticking with the above, then let me know if the cites provided were the best whr study examples. If not, then get me the best ones.

---

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)

Let me say I was pretty torn on whether to give this a POM or not.Although there are a few digressions I think you have gotten to the main problems, and perhaps the singularly largest problem I see with EP. Top down investigation carries the danger of misinterpreting data, instead shaping it, or filtering it to meet the desired (initial) conclusion.Actually I was also intrigued by the junk/compressed DNA question. It seems like a speculative possibility, and maybe someone with more knowledge can give evidence this is not the case, but it is an interesting idea.One criticism... you should have directly replied to his post so he could see he had something he needed to respond to.

---

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)

You need to do this to make a definitive statement. Using "weak" correlation studies to speculative advantages, cannot rule out that something is in fact softwired.This is similar to the IC argument that ID offers. We can certainly all agree that a certain biological function appears to be complex and must be all or nothing (removing one biochemical piece destroys necessary function). But that is as it is seen now, and it is possible that there were intermediates with different functions which have been lost leaving what we see in place today.ID dismisses that possibility and says that is making up a possible story when we can see what it does now, and none of the pieces have a different function than shaping the function as it is needed now. They thus dismiss that science will eventually find precursors which "bridged" to create the complex system we see today.EP, to accept conclusions made today on correlation, is dismissing the possibility that neural studies are going to be able to more accurately determine what is hardware vs software.Most scientists agree that ID methodology will not help advance science because it will make a positive statement regarding biological function, and thereby shut down research. That appears to be the same for EP. This is beginning to appear to be a dodge. I have already stated the difference between the brain an a hand, do I really need to go through the whole body?The muscles of the esophagous cannot change their positions on their own and re-engineer the esophagous for a totally new function. The brain is clearly capable of this feat. Because it can do so, it interferes with positive claims of genetic origin for any PM. This does not make it impossible, it simply makes it harder with more rigorous standards required. I am not claiming adaptations can overcome all genetic PMs. I have no idea how many are totally hardwired and incapable of total bypass. That said, I know of none that can't be in theory. We can come to love pain and hate pleasure. We can learn to not sense what is there and sense what is not there. With that capability it seems to me any inate PMs can be overrun or outmoded.This can be explored through science. And that is when we get down to arguments of practical methods of research. You continually knock my criticisms as "philosophical" and I am not sure what you mean, they are almost completely devoted to practical criticism.I am asking what methods can accurately separate genetically inherent PMs from potentially adapted PMs. That is not philosophical at all.Right now I am only seeing neural, and comparative neural studies as accurate enough to make that distinction properly. Or should I say significantly?To start with a presumption and then look for evidence which would fit, is not good science and is what things like ID and numerology are based upon.Asking me to forget the practical discussion of how to best determine hard vs soft PMs, and instead focus on what the results of correlation studies have shown is to ask me to accept your position outright on the best method without reason.Since you appear hesitant to discuss practical issues, I will move on to discuss specific examples of EP studies to get at how the methodology does/does not work to get at the proposed mechanism for PM development.

---

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)

One of the two whr papers I looked at was merely a survey of research. I want to start with looking at an actual research paper. All quotes will be from: The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, August, 1998 by Adrian Furnham, Melanie Dias, Alastair McClelland This opens with an overt statement that sociology and anthropological observations are hindering true psychological understanding of universal standards (adaptive here meaning evolved).This statement of course assumes that there is a universal, evolved standard of beauty in the first place. And does nothing to explain how anthropologists were innacurate in their reporting of obvious varieties of cultural prefs. Were they even there to try and find "universals"? Thus an evolutionary "perspective" is invoked, and thereby the beginning of a circular argument. It is quite clear that at this point some assumptions are being made. There is likely to be a universal human value of beauty, that it is evolutionarily derived, and that evolution will act in the manner as stated above.It has cut off the possibility that a trait will occur for no reason an remain simply because it was not selected against, instead of being reinforced by providing a distinct advantage over other mate desiring criteria.The study then sets out ways to determine the visual "ornamant" humans could key on, which can include fat distribution, or waist to hip ratios (whr). The former appears to be culturally derived, and the latter not. This is about as close to numerology as one can get. That there is a "unique" set of measurement ratios for a certain set of human characteristics in no way suggests that there is a remarkable functional significance, at least not with beauty. Weight bearing and length of legs (as well as their shape) may have more to do with set hip to waist ratios than beauty for mate selection purposes. This is perhaps the first insight into a methodological flaw. While we could grant all of the above theoretical issues, we are now dealing with how to determine functional utility of whr.Look at what the above states regarding whr. There is a distinction between men and women with regard to whr, specifically post puberty. Instead of any other reproductive advantage, is it not probable that an explanation for function is determining/separating male from female at a distance visually? That seems like a very straighforward function. These are the examples of problems high whr women might have and so a reason quality of mate might be signalled by whr value. Unfortunately what is not mentioned here, or not developed, is that most of these would not have a significant impact on reproduction at all. Note only in the last sentence is it mentioned that mortality rates are heightened in "older women".When were the primary general child bearing years for humans during which mate selection PMs would have been genetically selected for humans, and which of the above would have had a real effect during those years? So here we see the first argument of whr having a plausible connection to speculative advantage in mating, the assumption being made that since there is this plausible connection it is a worthy assumption.However, what do we actually see? We see that there is a relationship between whr an sex, and whr and possible reproductive health (though it has not been determined how much of an impact this endocrinological issue would actually have on human ancestors such that it would provide enough of a selection issue).In fact, we still cannot begin to say anything more than that whr's generally help identify women from men in post puberty environments. This could still be the only source of cueing, if indeed there is any actual sign of cueing.Singh moved on to show that whr preference was separate from weight (fat vs slim). Yet... Thus we do not see clear confirmation of the hypothesis, other than an additional study which suggests that to visual assessment of beauty whr is more related to assessment of physical attractiveness.Once again, I must note that this could simply be differentiating male vs female and not further reproductive health issues, and as a further issue whr may be related to overall appearance regarding how a body is put together (creating symmetry with limbs etc).The authors then move on to questioning breast size as another possible ornamental issue. I will note that they somehow mention size alone and not shape, including differential size and coloring of nipples as compared to the whole breast. Although they mention using photos I am uncertain how they removed or accounted for those differences between real life breasts. This was a description of line drawing studies. It is interesting to note that they have discounted culture despite noting popular media depictions of beauty, as well as historic differences in cultural attitudes toward body and breast size.METHOD Thus we have a very small survey population all of whom are from the same cultural background, and may have even had similar subcultural environments given that their educational and socio-economic backgrounds were "fairly homogenous".Can you honestly tell me that this study, as it is constructed, can possibly rule out environmental factors (nongenetic PM adaptations)? If so, how?I am also interested that it has majority female participants when the theory is that this is about universal mate selection. Let me note the criticisms they bring up, I'd agree, and add my own. No human is viewed as 2-d figures, and never just in one pose. In addition to many other mate selection criteria that could override "beauty", I am uncertain anyone chooses the same single vantage point to determine "beauty".So it seems that in addition to not ruling out culture at all, we are selecting from a singular vantage point and at an angle that would distort whr measurements anyway.Oh yes, and note their own words: "WHR representing typically feminine (0.7) or typically masculine (1.0) ratios were systematically manipulated within each drawing."Why are we not simply talking about cues to masculine vs feminine? Especially visual cues would tend to suggest identification from a distance, rather than other criteria which one would make close up.RESULTS and DISCUSSIONThere were various results according to different aspects the subjects were expected to evaluate based on the parameters of weight/whr/breast size. I will stick with the ones which are pertinent to the theory under investigation. This is interesting as it shows men have a preference for thin figures, yet this is known not to have always been the case. If this study is picking up some clearly cultural aspects (preference for thin), then is it not reasonable to suspect it has not weeded out other cultural aspects? Hmmmmm... "males more than females rated themselves more willing to engage in a long term relationship with all figures...male rated figures with a low hip-to-waist ratio and slimmer figures were more attractive in the sense that they were willing to engage in a long term relationship with them." Does this not start undermining any definitive claims? Okay... Could we not have thrown in other possible ratios and tried to detect a correlation? Here the study has closed the circle. What was used to create the whr hypothesis? The "good gene' hypothesis. What is used to confirm it? The "good gene" hypothesis.Why is it so complicated that we should assume that men use beauty as a measure of mate quality, rather than beings tend to gravitate toward what they find attractive? Visual appearance based on a number of factors (which this study tends to support) is important for the visual cueing.So one would tend to want to hang out with those that are attractive and use further criteria for mating? Culture vs inherent? Has this been answered? Whr contribution to visual symmetry of the female body vs association with reproductive success? Has this been answered? Admission of culture effects, as well as perceptual issues. Once again, admission of cultural effects. Primitive man would not have known about these health complications, and modern prefs may have to do with modern knowledge about health and physical cues to health. So maybe whr pref is as much a product of modern media influence, as is weight and breast size prefs which they noted earlier.Interestingly they do not discuss this possibility despite noting that the men make a mistake and identify as equal in health a heavy low whr with a slim high whr. Universal or cultural? Evolutionary and genetic versus in situ adapted? Hardware or software?At best I saw that there were popular correlations between whr weight and breast size to beauty, but they were not uniform across all subjects were they? What would account for the deviations? How does the correlation answer the above issues?I was extremely unimpressed with this study.

---

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 does not apply to me. My criticisms are as stated and nothing more.I suppose I agree with contra that some may have an agenda to rationalize/justify temporary beliefs and feelings as somehow universal "human nature", but I do not believe that describes all of them (I doubt it describes PR) and in any case there is a huge step between that and using them as rules of life and crushing others in a twisted version of science=moral law and teleologic determiner.For example, just because feeling anger at someone that is perceived as ugly or strange may be a hardwired PM. A scientist could just as easily say then we need to understand how to overcome this, or change it, rather than saying the new moral order will be hate those that are ugly.You criticisms are of a specific group of people that take science out of context. This is why you are continually wrong.Do not presume to speak for me.

---

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)