Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 236 (177795)
01-17-2005 10:12 AM


Evolutionary Psychology is more likely to replace the Ayn Rand fans than new age religion. I think it has some fundamental (ideological) flaws; as Oliver James remarked in the observer "This is pure speculation and a politically correct fig leaf for a theory that nearly always ends up supporting right-wing politics (that the poor are poorer, stupider and madder than the rich because of their genes is a corollary of evolutionary reasoning that is rarely mentioned)."

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 01-18-2005 10:54 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 11 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-18-2005 2:05 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 236 (178462)
01-19-2005 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Parsimonious_Razor
01-18-2005 2:05 PM


quote:
Except that this is completely false and not at all what the science claims. I am actually a very left-wing democratic socialist in my political and economic leanings and most of the people that I know in the evo psych department needed some serious down time after Bush was re-elected.
Sure. But so what - that is not how this line of research is being actually deployed in contemporary debate. As Psychology Today remarks:
quote:
The latest round of hostilities in this gendered war started in the mid-1990s, when a group of evolutionary psychologists began publishing research that looked at the origins of gender differences through Darwin's eyes. These EPs claimed (and continue to claim) that differences between the sexes do exist and that, try as we might, we can't change them. (That's the spark in the political tinder-box.) Whether in pre-modern Africa or current-day America, they say, gender-specific skills come from distinct psychological mechanisms that can be traced back directly and very nearly wholly to the Darwinian principle of sexual selection. In other words, it's in our genes.
...
Sounds a lot like gender stereotypes today: a species of aggressive philandering men and nurturing, monogamous women. (Much cited research to bolster this view by David Buss, Ph.D., a leader in this field at the University of Michigan, found that male college students who were offered the chance to sleep with a beautiful stranger that night, were more likely than their female counterparts to say yes.)
The situation may vary among cultures but, says Geary, culture will never change the fact that men can potentially reproduce more frequently than women. "It will always lead to some level of conflict of interest between men and women. Women want men to invest in their kids and them, and by doing so, men lose the opportunity to have multiple mates." And, he adds, there is no culture in which there is equality between men and women in childcare. "Women," he adds, "hate to hear that."
He's right. Women do hate to hear that. Not only women of the general public, but women researchers as well. Riled psychologists, many of them women, sat up in alarm when the evolutionary psychology theories started snowballing in academic journals and in the popular press as well. Articles appeared, television shows hosted EP spokespersons. Social conservatives started using the "biological" evidence of gender differences to claim validity for the women-as-natural-homemaker model of society.
It may be ther case that EvoPsych reserachers, at least in your department, do not share this view, but just recently the president of Harvard triggered much criticism by arguing for innate biological differences explaining the absence of women in positions of power. Whether a valid use of the reserach or otherwise, it is being used to advance conservative arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-18-2005 2:05 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-19-2005 12:52 PM contracycle has not replied
 Message 16 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-19-2005 2:53 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 236 (179241)
01-21-2005 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by pink sasquatch
01-19-2005 2:53 PM


Re: just a clarification...
quote:
I find it sad that a man apparently cannot hypothetically mention the possibility of innate differences between men and women without being labeled a sexist and accused of "advancing conservative arguments".
So life is hard and then you die; many things are sad. This response is not unreasonable, however, because of the frequency with which it actually appears. I'm quite surprised to hear the claim that these research departments contain lefties because I have only ever encountered this argument in public in the service on a conservative agenda.
You are quite correct to mention eugenics as comparator; eugenics is/was not inherently bad science, but the political uses to which it was put were certainly distasteful. In that case as in this, and echoing Parasomnium's point, just because something can be claimed to be natural does not lend it any normative validity - but that is not how it is likely to be used in the political domain.
Like Eugenics, EvoPsych seems set to become a pet right-wing theory, mostly expounded by those with a conservative political agenda, regardless of the quality of the actual science.
And ironically, it actually does look like pretty bad science to me becuase, as I remarked on another thread, there doesn't seem to be a model about what the brain is and does such that speculation as to evolutionary impact on the brain and its functions can produce meaningful conclusions.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-21-2005 06:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-19-2005 2:53 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 01-21-2005 8:46 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 19 by Parasomnium, posted 01-21-2005 9:13 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 21 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-21-2005 11:36 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 236 (179301)
01-21-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wounded King
01-21-2005 8:46 AM


Re: just a clarification...
quote:
Why do you need to look at the brain? Why not just study the behaviour? You can identify behavioural phenotypes in lab animals without studying their brains, why should it be any different for humans?
Sure - you can record, categorise, collect, enumerate, list - lots of things. But you cannot interpret without some sort of understanding of what the brain is actually doing. So as soon as they enter the realm of "because" it starts to sound to me like an appeal to one of the various philosophies, rather than the sciences.
Steven Pinker writes: "For ninety-nine percent of human existence, people lived as foragers in small nomadic herds. Our brains are adapted to that long-vanished way of life, not to brand-new agricultural and industrial civilisations. They are not wired to cope with anonymous crowds, schooling, written language, government, police, courts, armies, modern medicine, formal social institutions, high technology, and other newcomers to the human experience"
Now, thats a fair enough observation as far as it goes, but it presumes the brain is firmly hardwired. Is that true? Is it even *likely*? I think not; the largely undifferentiated mass of the brain suggests to me something more like a memory array that can be situationally configured. I've read some stuff (such as the book on PTSD I mentioned the other day) that suggests that there have been several observed cases of brain functions shifting physical location, something that would not be possible in a hardwired machine.
IMO, information science is a going to be as fundamental to biology as genetics, at the end of the day. Ultimately, genes themselves are just data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 01-21-2005 8:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-21-2005 2:11 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 236 (180217)
01-24-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Parsimonious_Razor
01-21-2005 2:11 PM


Re: just a clarification...
quote:
Also Evo-psych research is beginning to do exactly what you are asking. You have to realize we are just now beginning to enter a period of technological development that even allows us the ability to non-intrusively study how the brain is working in humans to the precision needed in evo-psych.
Sure. As I said I am not claiming it is bad science - all I have remarked is that the the moment the only people deploying it in political arguments are the right. I consider this more-or-less unrelated to the content of the actual work; in much the way that Rand is only compelling to people who have only read Rand.
The relationship between hardware and software is difficult to talk about; I imagine its going to be much worse trying to distinguish hardware that might have been layered down as a response to certain software, as it were. And I do think that the serach for functional modes is pretty much correct. But that said, the actual behaviour of the object as a whole can be be counterintuitive looking at the hardware alone. So I too will be watching with interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-21-2005 2:11 PM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 236 (181292)
01-28-2005 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Parsimonious_Razor
01-26-2005 1:03 PM


Re: Just a thought
quote:
Notice this makes a terrible computer program, because the human mind doesn’t fit into simple functions. Concepts such as quickly assess ones environment, examine stored knowledge and come to a quick decision are not programmable concepts.
Eh? Why not? In fact I would say that the majority of bespoke commercial programmes do these things. Not to the same degree, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-26-2005 1:03 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 01-28-2005 12:51 PM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 236 (183075)
02-04-2005 11:21 AM


I was hoping to see a response to Holmes post above.
--
Syamsu, on the off chance that you have been misunderstood, there is an observation in quantum physics of a "wave function collapse". Because the object is inderterminate until measured, when it is measured the probability that it occupies one possible slot or another will "collapse" into a certainty, here and now.
While I am not actually familiar with the term "probability collpase" in statisticis, I think the same idea holds, and that stistics will also refer to probabilistic functions. The same concept of "collapse" would then apply.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-04-2005 1:16 PM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 236 (183672)
02-07-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
02-06-2005 6:30 PM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
quote:
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.
Actually, good point there. If a routine’s algorithm is stored in location A, but location A is not accessible, the routine cannot be called. Now, the breakdown could be in the storage medium, or in the communication lines, but the system calling the routine would probably not be able to determine which.
IOW, showing that a loss of function accords directly with destruction of the brain part does not tell us why that happens. It could be because the routine is hard-WIRED at that point, but it might also be because the system is hard-CODED to look for the routine at that address.
quote:
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?
Actually no, IMO. That is, the question why is symmetry easier/better remains unanswered. If asymmetric things were inherently discomforting, then we would never be happy around trees, and yet most people find them comforting. This is actually exactly the kind of thing that I would hope such a discipline as EP would address.
In regards of a notional adaptation for fear of snakes, for example how does the brain detect and determine snake-ness in the first place? It seems dubious to me to speculate on what a given feature is FOR before you know how that feature works.
quote:
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?
Indeed, and hence some audiences detect a reactionary subtext.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 02-06-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Silent H, posted 02-07-2005 11:37 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 236 (183884)
02-08-2005 6:23 AM


I think the above post shows exactly why the question of hardware versus software must be addressed. If you say that the brain may contain old adaptations to circumstances that no longer apply, this appears to assume that the initial adaptation was a physical change, and that this is irreversible. But as I tried to point out by raising the distinctionn between something being hard WIRED and something being hard CODED, this need not be true.
Actually contemplating this has just made me wonder something about junk DNA - could it be compressed data? Compression and encryption are nearly the same thing; I could imagine the brain of a young child "unpacking" data from the junk DNA and compiling it in one part of the brain and then implementing it as a routine in another. Interesting.
Another concern arises from WHR scenario. I think its valid to say that the WHR is a marker of attractiveness, but is that the whole story? That is, for example, do the hormonal changes that occur in later life change the significance of this observation? One of the first attacks on EvoPsych I came across was titled something like "EP is just an excuse for old men in macs to lust after young hotties". This arose from seeing arguments surrounding the WHR as being universal normative claims. But one would think, if pair-bonding is a human strategy, that there must also be some evolutionary mechanism to make this stick; surely there should be some mechanism to mitigate the attractiveness of a young hottie in favour of the mother of your children, whom you are both still raising.
I do think the top down approach has the same danger that it always has, starting with a conclusion and searching for evidence to support it. And the danger, as always, is that if the assumptions underlying the conclusion are mistaken, the observations will still be interpreted in that light. It does seem to me as if the "agenda" of this discipline is to contradict ideas of cultural relativity and instead to essentially validate the status quo as normal and natural and inevitable.
I'm a little unclear as to what findings Razor is referring to when arguing the utility of the research - I though those were the very findings that Holmes was attacking as not really findings at all. What exactly are the successes of EP to date?

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Silent H, posted 02-08-2005 8:18 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 171 by Brad McFall, posted 02-12-2005 11:45 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 236 (189974)
03-04-2005 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Syamsu
03-01-2005 9:21 AM


quote:
It is all slanted towards mechanical cause and effect. You have all these mechanisms culminating in choice. But that is false logic according to common knowledge, because choices go the other direction, relate the future to present, and never go from past culminating in the present.
Well as they say "conventional wisdom is always conventional and never wise." The statement above is totally absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Syamsu, posted 03-01-2005 9:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Syamsu, posted 03-11-2005 3:08 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 236 (190003)
03-04-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Syamsu
02-28-2005 11:13 AM


quote:
You broaden the meaning of machine, to allow for decisions as machinebehaviour. This might do well in common language, but in describing things with mathematics no such fuzziness can be made.
Thats nonsense - it is math that showed us the essential similarity of machines and living creatures. They obey the same rules of engineering, and apparently do not obey any supernatural rules differentially.
quote:
hey do not describe a freedom in anything. See the pattern? The whole position of evolutionism is based on a veiled denial of free will, where creationism celebrates it.
Cerationists are liars confusing what they wish would be true with what is actually obsservably true. your very statement shows this as it purposefully does not accept that the view espoused is that such freedom is meaningless.
quote:
My theory is that nothing, or zero, is making the decision. That is, we should be able to localize a decision to a point, and at this point we would find nothing. I would not push back to a spiritual machine, but I think it likely possible to construct some model of how these points of decision relate to one another.
Nonsense. A localised decision is called a "switch", and it will necessarily be physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Syamsu, posted 02-28-2005 11:13 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 236 (190882)
03-10-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Syamsu
03-09-2005 10:29 PM


quote:
Let's remember that no evolutionist here save 1, even knew an "official" term for the point where a probability changes, realization on a probability. So if I would use that word in stead of decision then all but 1 person would know what I was talking about.
Nonsesne - its been competently addressed many times - the problem is YOU don't even understand your "point", becuase you don't have one.
quote:
You have 2 options in this debate. Either you show credible support for a science about decisions, turningpoints, realization or whatever u insist it should be called, or you stick your heels in the ground and object to all mention of things going one way or the other in science, for lack of evidence.
You don't even seem to know what "turning points" are in your own argument. Being familiar with bath statistics and information science, I can assure you that the concepts of decision and "turning point" are alive and well, and used all the time. The fact is you are sucking your argument out of your thumb.
quote:
The first will lead you to a generic science of creationism, where you view the origin of things from the point(s) at which they became likely to appear, the second lays you wide open to the charge that science and evolutionists especially are destroying knowledge about decision, with justifiable accusations of facillitating predeterminist ideologies such as nazism, communism, social darwinism.
Not only is this complete gibberish, but it then becomes gibberish squared by somehow constructing a link with "predeterminist" ideologies, and its unlikely that Syamsu is able to explain what he means by "determinist" or why these should apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Syamsu, posted 03-09-2005 10:29 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Syamsu, posted 03-11-2005 1:40 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 236 (190883)
03-10-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Silent H
03-01-2005 5:02 AM


quote:
I am totally admitting that decision, or the force which makes a decision, is a theoretical problem for those who believe in a mechanistic (material) universe.
What? Why? If that were true, how can we build computers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2005 5:02 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2005 12:10 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 236 (191035)
03-11-2005 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Silent H
03-10-2005 12:10 PM


quote:
Computers are rule systems which have set decision making guidance systems. Indeed without a program to force the computer to engage a problem, it will sit and do nothing. All of this has been programmed in by people, and it is unlikely that a computer "feels" like it is doing anything. They certainly do not have free will.
Neither do people IMO. I don't think you can make this distinction - the hardware is itself code. The hardware specifically is comprised of logical arithmetic expressed as circuit diagrams; and a programme is just a set of logical arithmetic expressed in terms of procedural switches and logical gates. The difference between the two is similar to the translation of matter and energy - same thing in different phases or forms.
quote:
Human decision making is different.
According to whom?
quote:
I know for certain that I feel like I have free will. While I might have predispositions, I am capable of choosing anything at any time, including overriding longheld decisionmaking "rules".
I suggest that this is an illusion - work with CAT scanners has shown the decisions is made first, and rationalised post facto. That is, the REASON a person gives for their action is always a justification of a non-conscious decision.
I'm prepared to allow for some modification in that position, and say that there are some decisions that are really made by the part of you that thinks of itself as you. But still, I maintain your sense of purposefuleness and free will is mostly illusion.
quote:
If everything is purely mechanistic, that is any particular decision is up to a mechanical-chemical hardwired rule system (like computers have) then there is no open decision making process at all.
No thats not a valid comparison. For example, your copmputer has a rule that tells it display large fonts or small fonts, and the computer cannot change that by itself. But you can click in a certain place and change the rule, and the next time the box boots the new rule will apply. Now, that means that some rules can be hard-CODED rather than being hard-WIRED (I did not get the impression you really followed this when it came up before).
And even a hard WIRED rule can be changed with the appropriate hardware - its actual just the logical extension of changing a hard CODED rule. If I attach a device for writing circuit boards, and a robotic arm, to a sufficiently sophisticated computer, then yes indeed I could get it to write, compile, carve, and install the circuit board, and then reboot itself so the new hard-WIRED rules take effect.
quote:
While that may not pose a problem for a person who simply believes in a mechanistic universe, it does pose a problem for such a person if they also believe in free will. Where does the ability to choose on single action between several choices come from, if it is not merely enough chemical stimulants determining choice A must be chosen over all others (meaning the rest were illusory as choices)?
To quote myself, "questions of free will are the vermiform appendix of philosophy". Free Will is only a meaningful concept in theistic terms, and I cannot see what value any non-theist sees in contemplating the topic. The only reason the free will discussion exists at all is to explain how god can be all powerful;, and yet we remain responsible for our sins. If you and I are materialists discussing life as it is known to be, we have no need to touch any of those topics.
And I can provide a perfectly valid machanistic model that explains the variability in human decision-making: monocultures are prone to catastrophe. It's better to produce individual systems that are variations on a theme to maximise resilience to single pint of failure.
quote:
Remember, despite saying that it is a problem, I am not saying it is unsolvable. I am simply recognizing that Syamsu has a point. If those believing in a purely mechanical universe (that is all we see is the natural result of chemicals interacting as they had to given initial conditions) advance free will, then they have a theoretical problem (inconsistency) they must deal with.
Well, OK - that point I concede. I just don't understand why any materialist wants to speculate about immaterial notions - it kinda defeats the purpose of being a materialiust, I would have thought. I'm not sure someone interested in such topics can be said to be a materialist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2005 12:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by 1.61803, posted 03-11-2005 4:11 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2005 7:44 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 236 (191391)
03-14-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by 1.61803
03-11-2005 4:11 PM


quote:
Problem is we do not know what exactley IS energy.
True, but as far as information is concerned, thats an unimportant question.
quote:
It writes a 1 erases a 0 . There is no true content other than 0's and 1's. When you say the word "tree" that word is more than a word to a human, it is a thousand memories and feelings and emotions of trees all collective to mean the word TREE.
... no, all those things are other bits of information - noughts and ones - linked together. Thats my whole point - neither in computers nor humans can there be any "true content" - there can only be information. Bits.
Your position is a bit like saying a picture of a mountain is not a picture of a mountain -0 becu7ase displayed on screen "its just noghts and ones". No, the noughts and ones are codes that produce action, such as "draw pixel 158 x 137 colour "royal blue"" - and it is those results that we see as the picture. Or the associations attached to the word "tree".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by 1.61803, posted 03-11-2005 4:11 PM 1.61803 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