Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the psychological case for Evolution
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 46 (530830)
10-15-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-14-2009 6:03 PM


Naturalistic Fallacy?
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.
I think you are in danger of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Just becuase something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is "good". Evolutionary psychology may well be able to shed some light on why we think the way that we do and why we behave the way that we do. But I am concerned that this can get conflated with judgements on how we ought to behave.
I think we should consider what we deem to be "good" or "bad" on the more rational and sophisticated criteria that relate to achieving the sort of society that we want to live in.
Every once in a while, we hear a scientist say "All branches of science point to Evolution--geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology. . ." I realize psychology isn't an exact science, but I wish they would say "psychology," too.
I guess the problem psychology has is that it is exceptionally difficult to make verifiable predictions. We can explain observed phenomenon in terms of evolutionary psychology but this all too often seems like making the theory fit the facts. The true test of any scientific theory, the real clincher, is when newly discovered facts perfectly match theory (i.e. specific predictions). I am quite interetsed in evolutionary psychology (well, at least to the extent that I have read books by Pinker, Robert Wright etc.) but even I think a lot of it amounts to hand waving, conjecture and no small amount of very subjective interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-14-2009 6:03 PM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by tomato, posted 10-15-2009 8:18 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 5 of 46 (530847)
10-15-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tomato
10-15-2009 8:18 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
Tomato in the OP writes:
For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probably listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, and the milk bottle.
For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you probably listed school, sour medicine, and penicillin shots.
For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you probably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, and illegal drugs.
For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.
Tomato in the OP writes:
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.
Straggler writes:
"Just becuase something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is "good".
Tomato writes:
If I don't realize that, then why do I list items under Questions 2 and 3?
OK. And I am not particularly disagreeing with your conclusions. I am simply pointing out that using phrases like "wrong direction" or "right direction" in this context presuposes some value judgements. Value judgements that I think you are potentially in danger of making on the basis of the naturalistic fallacy.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tomato, posted 10-15-2009 8:18 AM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:21 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 46 (531118)
10-16-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by tomato
10-16-2009 6:21 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
Straggler writes:
OK. And I am not particularly disagreeing with your conclusions. I am simply pointing out that using phrases like "wrong direction" or "right direction" in this context presuposes some value judgements. Value judgements that I think you are potentially in danger of making on the basis of the naturalistic fallacy.
Sorry. I thought that from the context, you could see that "in the right direction" meant "desirable in modern society" and "in the wrong direction" meant "undesirable in modern society."
The unthinking consensus in modern society is highly prone to the naturalistic fallacy.
As for what is praiseworthy and blameworthy in the mind of God, I shall leave that question to experts such as Pat Robertson.
I am not sure where this fits into anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:21 AM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 5:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 46 (531139)
10-16-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by tomato
10-16-2009 6:24 AM


Point Unclear
Are you saying children are instinctively afraid of natural things but learn to be afraid of unnatural things?
Okay, so maybe it's not all nature and some of it is nurture.
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were fed to the lions.
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were fed to the lions.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
To paraphrase:
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were attacked by bulldozers. Bulldozer - Wikipedia
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were attacked by bulldozers.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:24 AM tomato has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 24 of 46 (531634)
10-19-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by tomato
10-19-2009 5:55 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
Tomato writes:
Okay, so maybe it's not all nature and some of it is nurture.
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were fed to the lions.
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were fed to the lions.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
Straggler writes:
To paraphrase:
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were attacked by bulldozers. Bulldozer - Wikipedia
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were attacked by bulldozers.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here?
Tomato writes:
Straggler, if children are not afraid of automobiles, then why do parents have to teach their children not to run out in the street?
Being a father of a small child I can tell you that the requirement for road safety with little kids has more to do with their complete obliviousness to the fact that fast moving objects capable of killing them might suddenly appear on those strange things called roads that balls and other toys have a habit of rolling into.
Ignorance, obliviousness and an ability to absorb themselves in their own little world. Very probably all the same reasons little kids would be relativley susceptible to being unsuspectingly pounced upon by wild animals in different circumstances.
If you place a kid in the middle of a road and force him to watch a roaring car charge at him then the reaction would be pretty similar to if that car were a lion in my opinion.
Can you explain what exactly what your point is here regarding kids, fears and nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 5:55 AM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 8:11 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 37 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 7:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 46 (531645)
10-19-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by tomato
10-19-2009 8:11 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
If you're so confident that your children are afraid of automobiles, I hope your yard is fenced in.
Given that he regularly sits in the back of a car and often takes the bus with me it would be rather a drawback if he exhibited innate and complete terror at the very sight of any automotive vehicle.
I've never been to a primitive village, but I assume that a child in a primitive village doesn't go out and try to play with lions and tigers the minute Mommy's back is turned.
And I don't think little kids in London dive under bulldozers.
Straggler writes:
"Can you explain what exactly what your point is here regarding kids, fears and nature?
You mean any more clearly than I already have?
I don't think so. I've already done that best I can.
Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 8:11 AM tomato has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 46 (531743)
10-19-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
10-17-2009 4:14 AM


"Sound in spirit but not necessarily in form"
CS writes:
Mod writes:
Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but do you think his argument is sound?
I think it's sound in spirit, but not necessarily in form.
I agree. I think me and Tomato have got off on the wrong foot. I think this thread is a potentially interesting one. I think the foundation of his argument raises some questions worth asking. I suspect that I would agree with the underlying point he is trying to make. At least to some extent.
But his use of some rather simplistic and not very apt examples has led me and him down a mildly confrontational blind alley.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 10-17-2009 4:14 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 46 (531837)
10-20-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by tomato
10-19-2009 7:08 PM


More Complex Approach
It's not the automobiles that children are not afraid of but should be afraid of, it's the roads.
Well familiarity breeds contempt. Kids in the modern world see roads, see people safely navigate roads and are led across roads themselves all the time. Any toddler who was innately and instinctively fearing of roads would be in a constant state of panic and terror if they lived in any significant urban area anywhere in the world. Likewise I suspect that any child raised surrounded by tame lions would not be instinctively afraid of lions.
In fact, no amount of education and no amount of maturity can ever overcome the tendency toward p. i. m. t.
When you watch a monster movie, you can say "It's only a movie" all you want to, but it won't do any good.
And yet most adults are quite capable of watching monster movies and not running for their lives in the way that they might well do if genuinely confronted with a 2 tonne man eating alien reptile (or whatever).
I think the points you are trying to make about evolved and innate human psychology are valid. But they are more complex, more subtle, more generic than you are giving them credit for and thus not able to be demonstrated by the very specific and simplistic examples you are citing.
I think this is the part of the problem with evo-psych as a science. It is not at all easy to make specific predictions regarding new phenomenon. Thus it often seems like it is just being made up as it goes along to incorporate the evidence as it is found in a rather ad-hoc and contrived manner. That is not to say it has no worth or that we shouldn't study psychology in that context.
But it does mean it isn't easy and it does mean that extra effort is required to draw conclusions that are not influenced by cultural and persoanl biases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 7:08 PM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by tomato, posted 10-20-2009 8:08 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 11:35 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 41 of 46 (531867)
10-20-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by tomato
10-20-2009 8:08 AM


Re: More Complex Approach
Let's see you explain evolutionary psychology, then.
And what makes you think that I think that I can? Especially given that I have been consistently saying that the very nature of the subject makes it very difficult to study scientifically in a way that is not deeply prone to cultural and personal bias?
If you just want a definition from me then how about the following:
Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain the psychology of humans and other animals as products of natural selection and evolution. Essentially treating the physiology of the brain, and the resulting psychological effects of this physiology, no differently except in terms of complexity to the evolution and function of any other organ.
I haven't looked this up at all and it certainly isn't definitive or complete. But I am not sure if you are trying to define what evolutionary psychology (EP) is in this thread or cite meaningful evidence for it? Or both?
Have you read any of Steven Pinker's books at all? He makes a good argument for language as a very generic but instinctive human ability as a result of EP. For example.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by tomato, posted 10-20-2009 8:08 AM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by tomato, posted 10-20-2009 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 46 (531903)
10-20-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-20-2009 11:35 AM


Re: More Complex Approach
I'm not sure of course, but I'd be inclined to think that if you were really devious and raised a child by actors who all pretended to be afraid of rabbits and another by adults that were afraid of spiders - you'd find that the spider phobia was more readily transferred.
Yes I too was thinking of phobias. Both in terms of prevalence and the difficulty or ease with which different examples of specific phobias might be overcome. I was trying to work out how these could go some way to making Tomato's point more subtly.
I think your "more readily transferred" approach sums it up nicely. So great minds think alike in this instance. Even if some great minds are quicker off the mark and more to the point than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 11:35 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 46 (532112)
10-21-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by tomato
10-20-2009 6:58 PM


Re: More Complex Approach
I thought "The Language Instinct" was the best argued and most solidly evidenced (as far as I can tell with my laymans knowledge of these things) book Pinker has written.
Human language acquisition might make an interesting side topic in this thread......?
Pinker's other books "Blank Slate" and "How the Mind Works" were interesting but more woolly IMO. "The Stuff of Thought" I have not yet read.
I never heard of Robert Wright before, so I'll give him a try.
I also ordered Moral Animal.
"The Evolution of God" is Wright's latest book. I haven't read it but would like to. "The Moral Animal" is again interesting and all the stuff on game theory and the prisoners dilemma etc. I found fascinating. But still I think a lot of the examples are very explanatory only in the sense that they seems to be fitting a preconceived theory to facts in a somewhat contrived manner. IMO.
Robert Wright writes:
We may be biased into deceiving ourselves so as to be more proficient at deceiving others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tomato, posted 10-20-2009 6:58 PM tomato 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