Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Laws of Attraction: The seduction of Evolutionary Psychology?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 102 (290044)
02-24-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-24-2006 8:04 AM


Those are some great strawmen, Holmes. Your critiques, I mean. Not to mention the slipshod reasoning contained in this post. Not exactly your finest hour, I must say.
At the same time counter evidence is summarily dismissed or downplayed in light of the correlations. Unfortunately that is a circular logic, also unaddressed by EP adherents.
Like, what? How do counterexamples disprove correlation? Correlation itself is marked by the fact that it isn't perfect, only correlated; and nobody's offering the position that evolution controls our minds. But it does influence them. If that were true we would expect to see a statistically significant deviation from random behavior, even though individuals may reject or make different choices than their instinct might otherwise dictate. Do you do everything you ever feel like doing, Holmes?
We're not even at the point where's it's necessary to show you the studies. First we have to tear down this insurmountable wall of purposeful ignorance, ad hominem, and fallacious analysis you've erected around yourself. I don't, however, think I have the patience to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 8:04 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 11:03 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 102 (290111)
02-24-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
02-24-2006 11:03 AM


Answer the question, Holmes. Before I post studies I want to be able to know that you can reason appropriately about them.
Do you believe that a counterexample disproves correlation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 11:03 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 102 (290113)
02-24-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
02-24-2006 11:35 AM


Re: Violence,Testosterone, and Evolution
I agree that hormones can regulate behavior, that genes control hormone production, and that evolutionary processes shaped those genes.
The question is what evidence we have regarding specific behaviors being selected for in order to solve specific external environmental problems.
I don't see how the first doesn't answer the second.
It is my opinion that proper EP studies are possible the more physical the focus, immediate the result of the physical trait, and comparison to such traits in ancestral-type species to peg down where and when the trait may have evolved.
And I don't understand why you think evolutionary psychology is the only evolutionary field that has to nail down the exact environment and time period that prompted these adaptations in order to be a science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 11:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 102 (290116)
02-24-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
02-24-2006 1:34 PM


A specific counterexample may disprove an assertion that a correlation represents a causative relation
How would it do that, except in the simplest possible case? If the causative relation is merely one of several influencing factors - which would have to be the case unless the coefficient of corellation was 1 - then a counterexample disproves nothing at all about the putative causation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 1:34 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 102 (290125)
02-24-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
02-24-2006 2:11 PM


Re: Violence,Testosterone, and Evolution
This is description of a measurable physical process connected directly to emotional states and behavior, with no assignment to a specific environmental solution or suggestion of when it was produced.
I don't see why that's required. The origin of human genes is the same as the origin of the genes of all organisms - evolution. It's hardly necessary to provide a speculation about what environment was present that our genes had to adapt to; we know that the origin of the content of our genes is evolution, which would entail adaptation to our environment - whatever it may be.
If you posit as part of your hypothesis that something occured at a specific time, there would have to be evidence for this.
I don't see where that has been posited.
EP theorists often compare their field to physiology development theorists, but establishing boundaries of where a physiological feature might have occurred depends on comparisons to features within other species in order to identify where it might have come about and what environmental factor might have been important.
Again, I don't see the necessity of this. It's not necessary for me to posit the specific envrionment to conclude that a specific gene was selected for as an adaptation to an environment; we know that the origins of our genes is adaptation to environment regardless of the fact that we're not certain what that environment may have entailed.
I mean, unless you mean to suggest that human beings are the only organisms on the planet for whom evolution does not apply? Why on Earth would we expect that to be the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:11 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 102 (290128)
02-24-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
02-24-2006 2:18 PM


If you have an EP study which you believe is a representation of modern scientific research delivering a solid conclusion regarding human behavior, explaining how a specific behavior is genetically determined, and what that mutation was reinforced to solve, please cite it.
Why do you believe that all that is necessary for evolutionary theories about human behavior to be legitimate? It's sufficient to show that a given behavior has a genetic influence, because we know that adaptations to environment are the origin of our genes.
Or is the last part of that what you find debatable? Human beings are special? We're the only organisms ever whose genes are not the result of adaptation to circumstance?
I'm willing to cite research indicating that human mate choice is not random, but influenced by purely genetic concerns under the scope of human consciousness (which was my original contention that prompted this topic), but I need to know that I'm not going to spend 200 posts rebutting nonsense objections, correcting your strawmen, and deflecting ad hominem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:18 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 102 (290155)
02-24-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
02-24-2006 2:39 PM


Re: Violence,Testosterone, and Evolution
I agree with the above statement, but that stands in contrast to EP which specifically claims to draw a connection between a behavior and an environmental factor.
But that's not the claim of EP. The claim of EP is that a given behavior has an organic influence; and that organic influence exists because it's evolutionarily advantageous.
In most of these experiments, for instance the ones about human mate choice (which I think are the experiments we should stick to), the specific environment is irrelevant, because the environment is always the same - one individual among many, some of whom he or she wishes to mate with. The environment is always the same in sexual selection - sex.
Some genes may exist, creating a trait, which are neutral toward environment and so not a result of adaptation to an environment.
We would expect to find such genes fairly randomly distributed, rather than corellated with any adaptive factor, however, so we can ignore those genes. They're not relevant.
I might add that not all behaviors need to be hardwired into our brain
More strawmen. Nobody's suggested that any behavior is "hardwired" into our brain, except some junior copy editor at the science desk. The brain is an adaptable organ indeed and as near as we can tell, it's ability to adapt to new modes of operation and new structure is limitless.
But, regardless of that fact, the majority of human brains develop the same way. Despite the many differences between us, Holmes, unless you've experienced a drastic brain injury at some point in your life, it's guaranteed that you process language, vision, motor control, and the like all with exactly the same areas of your brain that I do. Clearly the development of our brains is influenced, if not determined, by some genetic program.
It's not inherently unreasonable to suggest that that programmed structure leads to programmed influences, as well. And so the burden of proof of substantiating such a claim is not nearly as high as you make it out to be, since it would be highly unreasonable indeed to suggest that there are no programmed influences at all.
If one says that whr selection is related to health estimation in humans, then one has inherently posited that whr selection as a behavior was selected for while humans were within this form, and not sometime earlier in their ancestry.
There's nothing inherent about that at all.
That certain behaviors are genetically coded as a result of evolutionary pressures for specific situations is not.
But you have agreed. A few posts ago you agreed that hormones influence behavior and hormones are the results of genes. The conclusion is inescapable. If behavior is influenced by hormones, and if hormones are produced by genetics, and if our genetics are the result of evolution, and if evolution means "allele frequency change over time as a result of differential reproductive success", then certain behaviors are positively or negatively influenced as a result of evolutionary adaptations to environment.
And we know that all those "if's" are true; you yourself have specifically agreed with each one of them. So you must agree that there are evolved influences on our behavior. Now it's simply a matter of determining which behaviors are so influenced, and once we've established a heritable organic influence on a behavior, it's simply a matter of trying to determine a reasonable adaptive benefit to the influence.
I grant you that the last two things are not trivial, but the first - determining which behaviors have an organic influence - is harder than the second. The first is simply a matter of determining if the behavior is evenly distributed or not once culture is controlled for. The second is just imagination, like any time we posit that one trait or another might result in an adaptive benefit.
If you have a paper to present which does not advance the type of theory I outlined then I will deal with it.
I've got a few but they're going to have to wait till when I get home.
In fact I am really only interested in dealing with actual evidence/studies within this thread regarding genetic formation of specific human behavior.
Loaded question. It's sufficient to show that a behavior is organic and heritable to imply that it is genetic; our genes are the sole mechanism of heredity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:39 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 102 (290156)
02-24-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
02-24-2006 2:53 PM


I have suggested that mere correlation is not sufficient to indicate a genetic influence.
Nobody has suggested that it is. Correlation demonstrates that a behavior has an organic influence; heredity demonstrates that such an influence is genetic. Genes are, after all, the mechanism of heredity.
I will once again state that the objections I have raised, have been raised by professionals in these fields, including some of the originators of EP who have not been happy with the direction popular EP has taken.
Well, wait now. Are we talking about actual scientific work in neurobiology, neurophysiology, and neuropsychology? Or are we talking about stuff in Discover Magazine where a breathless copy editor claims that "male brains are hardwired to like tits" or something?
If the intent of all this is to criticize speculations by non-biologists about evolutionary origins of behavior being offered as authoritative, I'm in total agreement. And it doesn't escape my notice that I myself, against my better judgement, am guilty of the same thing.
But your OP seemed to be an indictment of the entire field; a criticism of the very idea of offering that humans often behave the way they do because those behaviors connote reproductive success. And there's absolutely no reason to critique such an inherently reasonable idea. It would be unreasonable to suggest that this is definately not the case.
Is that what you're doing? When I read your posts, you seem to, but that might just be another example of how poorly we communicate with each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2006 2:53 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 02-25-2006 6:10 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 102 (290162)
02-24-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chiroptera
02-24-2006 4:57 PM


Re: Violence,Testosterone, and Evolution
But of course that would undercut the main reason for evo-psych, namely giving legitamacy to the old parlour game of trying to find reasons for certain behaviors to be adaptive.
Certainly that's speculation whenever it was done, but I don't see why that's illegitimate. These things are never offered authoritatively and it's not like you could design an experiment to test them.
I don't see it as any more of a parlor game than a bunch of physicists talking about string theory, which can't be tested either. It's harmless at worst and at best, occasionally illuminating.
We accept all the time the idea that certain traits are advantageous. Why is this different? If I asked you to prove that having wings was an advantage, could you do that? I don't see how. Nontheless we accept that wings provided an advantage to many populations of different organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 4:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 102 (290289)
02-25-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Silent H
02-25-2006 6:10 AM


I think the best way to go about this review is to produce papers on specific behaviors so everyone can see the evidence we are discussing.
I'll post a paper that I think is indicative of the sort of research that I think of when I think of evolutionary psychology. Am I wrong to attribute this article to the field of evolutionary psychology?
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
(TinyURL is a free URL proxy service for shrinking long URL's.)
quote:
The Scent of Symmetry: A Human Sex Pheromone that Signals Fitness?
A previous study by the authors showed that the body scent of men who have greater body bilateral symmetry is rated as more attractive by normally ovulating (non-pill-using) women during the period of highest fertility based on day within the menstrualcycle. Women in low-fertility phases of the cycle and women using hormone-based contraceptives do not show this pattern. The current study replicated these findings with a larger sample and statistically controlled for men’s hygiene and other factors that were not controlled in the first study. The current study also examined women’s scent attractiveness to men and found no evidence that men prefer the scent of symmetric women.
We propose that the scent of symmetry is an honest signal of phenotypic and genetic quality in the human male, and chemical candidates are discussed. In both sexes, facial attractiveness (as judged from photos) appears to predict body scent attractiveness to the opposite sex. Women’s preference for the scent associated with men’s facial attractiveness is greatest when their fertility is highest across the menstrual cycle. The results overall suggest that women have an evolved preference for sires with good genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 02-25-2006 6:10 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-26-2006 5:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 102 (290397)
02-25-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by melatonin
02-25-2006 2:38 PM


I have a different view of this. I don’t know if it is discussed in the literature of EP but a recent paper by Tania Singer raised this possibility to me. Tania Singer’s group at UCL have shown that males show less empathy (and even pleasure - schadenfreude) to the suffering of an individual who has ”cheated’ them. They suggest that this would be useful in the evolution of society - men as rule makers and protectors (which I guess is similar to alpha male behaviour). It seems to me that this could be a consequence of similar genes indicated in sociopathy (it’s completely my speculation, lol). As empathy requires ”theory of mind’ and sociopaths are deficient in ”theory of mind’ and so lack empathy, it seems that sociopathy may be the result of an extreme version of such behaviour.
Just to add to your exciting speculations, you mentioned game theory - it's known that the most successful strategy in the "iterative prisoner's dilemma" - a common mathematical game where mutual cooperation is more advantageous than mutual distrust, but slightly less advantageous than betraying a partner who is cooperating with you - is a kind of "vengance" algorhythm where the player cooperates if he was cooperated with in the last game with that partner and betrays his partner if he was himself betrayed by that partner last game.
The ability to take vengance is important to that strategy, obviously. So that might explain the evolutionary influence that led to a gene suppressing empathy, or promoting pleasure at observing a betrayer be betrayed. Such a suppression might interefere with child rearing, however, so that might explain why the suppression is more pronounced in males than in females.
Just speculation, but I find your ideas very exciting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by melatonin, posted 02-25-2006 2:38 PM melatonin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by melatonin, posted 02-25-2006 3:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 102 (290694)
02-26-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
02-26-2006 5:35 PM


I finished reading it today and before I write an analysis I thought I'd actually like to hear more about what you think this study suggests.
Well, many things. It certainly substantiates the position that human attraction has organic influences, influences that have been shaped by sexual selection and genetic fitness. I mean obviously it suggests exactly what it claims to - that women, statistically, rate the smell of more symmetric men more pleasing - but beyond that, it would seem to suggest that there may be many influences in regards to what we find attractive in mates that have to do not with our individual conscious desires, but what our bodies are programmed to recognize as superior genes in mates.
I don't think it suggests that women are mind-controlled to always mate with symmetric men. I don't think it suggests that human beings aren't morally culpable for our behavior. I don't think it suggests that we should throw open the prison doors because all the inmates are just poor bastards who simply did what they were programmed to do. I think the phrase used was "dispositional influence" and I think that's a great way to put it.
Do you believe it is definitive? Highly suggestive? Suggestive? Largely Speculative?
Can't it be all of those? Definitive and suggestive? Isn't that what makes for a really significant paper, in fact? That it definitively answers the question it set out to address, and suggests new avenues of exploration?
I would also ask if you understand methodology or statistics so that its discussion makes sense?
I'll be honest with you. If I didn't, would I know?
I'm not completely ignorant of statistics, and I'm employed by scientists so I'm familiar with at least some aspects of methodology. I've begun an undergraduate degree in biology. If your analysis is going to be a highly technical criticism of their math I'm probably not going to try to follow it.
I don't claim any degree of expertise, only that I'll do my best to try to follow along and make whatever reply I see best.
I hope that answered your questions. I look forward to your review of the paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-26-2006 5:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 02-26-2006 6:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 102 (290739)
02-26-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
02-26-2006 6:55 PM


By saying "certainly substantiates" I will take it that you feel the above items have been more than merely speculated at, or suggested by the paper, and that it has provided highly suggestive to definitive evidence.
Sure. If I were trying to defend the positions I've outlined above, I would offer this paper, among others, as evidence; and I would expect readers to find that evidence convincing. I wouldn't, of course, say that this one single paper proves the whole thing.
As a heads up, this study did not "certainly substantiate" what you claim it did. It was admittedly (the authors state it plainly) not definitive, and its methodological flaws leave it hardly suggestive
Maybe as inculcated as I have become in the biological sciences I'm far more tolerant of little methodological hiccups than you may be. If you're looking for the rigor of a mathematical proof, or even of an experiment in physics with spheres and slanted surfaces, you're not going to find it in the biological sciences.
There are simply far too many factors to be controlled. Living things are complicated, and the experiments that I suspect you would find necessary to substantiate genetic influence of certain traits in humans would constitute crimes against humanity. Identifing genetic traits in humans must always be a fairly circumspect process, since we can't just go in and disable genes in a zygotic human and see how the adult develops. That would be a barbarity.
I hope that will be okay.
Please, Holmes, feel absolutely free to take your time. I do mean that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 02-26-2006 6:55 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 02-27-2006 5:33 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 102 (290851)
02-27-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
02-27-2006 6:00 AM


Re: Hey Holmes
There can be coincidence and secondary effects which may confound any such conclusions.
There always could be. At what point do you believe Occam's Razor kind of kicks in?
I mean, if you're relying on researchers to eliminate every last possibility of hidden, confounding factors that make it falsly seem like they've found exactly what they were looking for, it makes me wonder exactly what scientific research you do accept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 02-27-2006 6:00 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 02-27-2006 3:57 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 102 (290925)
02-27-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Silent H
02-27-2006 3:57 PM


Re: scent study 1
There's a lot here, and I'll get to it, but I need to work on a presentation for class tonight.
But already I can several areas where your criticisms lack merit. Just offhand, you conflate natural and sexual selection several times that I observed simply skimming through the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 02-27-2006 3:57 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 02-27-2006 5:27 PM crashfrog 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