The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

First of all I was talking just about us and our discussion regarding Dawkins. Actually, all Dawkins did was describe in a popular literature book ideas in the field of evolutionary biology that date back sometimes 30 years before he wrote it. I don't think we agree on the message behind the book and don’t really think it matters to much for the discussion at hand. It was a complicating factor and I thought it best to ignore it for the time being.There is not a single evolutionary field that views behaviors a purely a gene ---> action scenario. It just isn’t the case. There are MANY things that affect that relationship. There is an influence of genes on behavior but it is not an exclusive influence. And there is not a single published evolutionary psychology paper that says otherwise. Try and find one, Google Scholar and No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.pubmed.org are some free to use easy accesses sources to abstracts.Much of evolutionary psychology is the study of choice and how we make decisions. What the theory says is that in any given day we do a lot of things on autopilot. We aren't consciously thinking of every choice we make or every thought we have. And the evolutionarily evolved psychological modules have a major effect in this area. But any individual at any time is free to ovecome these mechanisms by choice or otherwise.There is nothing intrinsic in the field that says whether any evolved psychology is good or bad. But outside the direct science a lot of the "applied" research is how to OVERCOME your impulses not give into them. Check out "Mean Genes" for a good example of that. It’s an applied evo psych book for the general public.

I followed your link and looked at a page on the web.http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.htmlRemember that what we are looking for is if or not evolutionary psychology recognizes choices, as in a point where things can go one way or another, and at that point it is decided which way it will go.They do mention choice, but.. there is nothing actually decided. It is programmatical in the sense of a cause and effect mechanism.I'll try to make the difference between actual and fake choice clear in computerprogram language .a fake choice where the outcome is predetermined:===============================
if dangerlevel > criticaldo "flight"elsedo "fight"end if
==============================There was no actual choice here between fight or flight, the outcome was predetermined by the values "dangerlevel" and "critical".a "real" choice where the outcome is not predetermined:============================
action=0
threshold=100do while action < thresholdif random(fight, flight)=fightfight=fight +1
flight=flight-1elseflight=flight +1
fight=fight -1endifaction=max(fight, flight)enddo
============================
Due to the randomness function the outcome is not predetermined.Now look at where in all the article there is a single event where the outcome is not predetermined. There isn't any. So they use the language of choice, and emotion, but they just not include things going one way or another in their concept of choice. They even explicitly deny free will."An evolutionary psychological theory of the emotions"
....
" To behave functionally according to evolutionary standards, the mind's many subprograms need to be orchestrated so that their joint product at any given time is functionally coordinated, rather than cacophonous and self-defeating. This coordination is accomplished by a set of superordinate programs - the emotions.""All cognitive programs - including superordinate programs of this kind - are sometimes mistaken for "homunculi", that is, entities endowed with "free will".edited to add:
As Tooby and Cosmides seem to be quite dominant in the discipline, it's case closed I would say. The acceptance of choice in evolutionary psychology is just meaningless lipservice. It is no coincedence either that they corrupt the meaning of choice in saying natural selection "chooses", while at the same time saying natural selection is a force that has no chance in it, but just outside it. This corruption must follow from their omitance to actually posit events which may turn out differently as choices.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-26-2005 08:49 AMThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-26-2005 08:50 AMThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-26-2005 10:50 AM

quote:

---

action=0
threshold=100

​

do while action < threshold

​

if random(fight, flight)=fight

​

fight=fight +1
flight=flight-1

​

else

​

flight=flight +1
fight=fight -1

​

endif

​

action=max(fight, flight)

​

enddo

---

You do realize that such an approach would be deadly? That if you RANDOMLY decided to fight or flight our days would be fucked up. Oh look there is lion. My random fight or flight isn't activated, opps I am eaten while staring at the sun. Oh there is a lion, my random FIGHT is activated opps my claws aren’t as big as his claws I am dead again.There are certain things in the mind and body that are VERY reflexive. Some are completely reflexive. Do you remember to keep your heart beating? Do you have any significant control, using just your mind now (no running in place), to raise or lower your heart rate a significant level. It can be done but it is VERY difficult. The fight or flight mode of the body is not a good example to argue choice because the brain often reacts reflexively to significant dangerous. If a lion jumps out you have a reflex reaction to activate your sympathetic nervous system. It would be VERY difficult not too. Because we need FAST action not deliberation.But that doesn’t mean we can’t have choices even in such a case. We can override any function, if we need too. For example if you are hunting a lion your reactions are going to be different than if you are gathering plants and have no friends or weapons. Does the lion see you? Again your actions are likely to be different depending on the answer to that question. What evo psych says in the this example is that we all have a reflexive fight or flight response to dangers and stressors, the sympathetic nervous system is activated quickly and unconsciously because our those of our ancestors that reacted that quickly survived better. That’s it, what you choose to do after that evo psych doesn’t say. It doesn’t say you will always fight, always run, or go hide, call for help, shoot with your gun, show your kid hey look at the lion in that exhibit, ect. What the proximate factors are at the time determine your specific actions. Evo psychy does NOT attempt to describe what each individual does in each circumstances. It looks to describe wide patterns that we all hold. So the true evo psych computer program would be something like this:if dangerlevel > critical(
do "sympathetic nervous system response
do assess environmental factors at the time
do assess prior knowledge and understanding of the situation
do think about action to be taken
do action chosen
else
do "what you want"
end ifNotice 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.

But all choices must be able to come out one way or the other, otherwise they are not choices but other, hence the absolute need for a randomness function as the point where the event can come out one way or another. The emotions and choices the evopsychs talk about, do not have this point, at all. So as to what we were actually discussing; yes evopsychs deny and neglect choice, because they say a choice and an emotion doesn't neccesarily come out one way or another.It makes me ill to think of emotions that way, as machine-mechanisms. They have made a construct of an emotional being, that doesn't neccesarily have any choice whatsoever, can't go one way or another in the event. Free will is left entirely out of the construct, and is not a neccessary part of it. Now we can expect the usual social darwinist papers on genetic laziness, and courage, in animals and humans. It is a certainty that such thinking must result in racism, the worship of the blood as the creator which decides.You might want to consider how deadly it is for a competitor to basicly be completely predictable. My program doesn't reflect it much, but I am basicly supposing when 2 competing animals engage in a mutual stare, that the chance between fight or flight is rapidly fluctuating, due to their choosing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Randomness removes choice as much as anything.Well I think this discussion is just about at its end, you have made your predictions for how you think evo psych will go. We will see how they turn out.I make a different set of predictions. The field is going to merge with cognitive psychology, and neuroscience which has been developing descriptions of how thought takes place at a more down-up processing. It will serve as a unifying theoretical frame for cog psych and a more fully developed concept of the mind will emerge. The application of the theory will be a wealth of understanding about our motivations on a day to day basis and a wealth of information about how to over come are drives.

You are using words based on your prejudice against things going one way or another. I highly doubt that in a court of law somebody could be found guilty for a "choice" which couldn't actually turn out any other way. Obviously there's something terribly wrong here. It's basicly the exactsame thing all over again as previous attempts at applying Darwinism to psychology, because the fundamental prejudice is the same.It is of course a myth promulgated by evopsychs that in the 150 years since Darwin's theory, there wasn't actually an attempt to apply Darwinism to psychology. That was one of the first things they tried, and the result was a flood of social darwinism.We should all fear an economically defunct China, where the citizens are indoctrinated into evopsych as the modern and rational alternative to religion. A no-nonsense scientific approach as basis for their desperation for progress. A marauding tribe of millions of selfidentified hunter-gatherers menacing the world.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I grew up in east Asia and I can assure you that most common people there don't have a clue that is such a thing as TOE.

As mentioned before, the reason I lift out China, is because there they have instituted farreaching eugenic laws, backed by the science community. China also engaged in widespread cultural destruction under the communist regime, so to leave a less rich, less complex culture, vulnerable to seductive ideas. Evolutionary pscychology, social darwinism, mimics to a great extent common judgementalism. The language overlaps a lot with common judgementalism. So it is not like there is some steep learningcurve which a less scholarly Chinese can't overcome.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Could you be a little more specific? By specific, I am referring to examples, not more general assertions. How so? Please be more specific. Again, please be more specific.Blanket statements, though sometimes can be true, should always be avoided, especially about issues that are still up for debate.

Chinese scientists back eugenics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/198555.stm"The survey, which was conducted in 1993 among 255 geneticists throughout China, was reported in the British magazine New Scientist.Genetic testingsAlmost unanimously - by 91% - the scientists said that couples who carried the same disease-causing genetic mutation should not be allowed to have children."The cultural destruction was during Mao's "cultural revolution".As common judgentalism is much about valueing life, or survival, and avoiding death, and since evolutionists commonly use words such as goodness, superior, inferior to denote survival / reproduction the language overlaps.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thank you.Perhaps you have a better option for population control and distribution of very limited resources?The article you pointed to forgot to mention the fact that China does not have the vast economic and natural resources like the west. The comparason can never be justified.The cultural revolution in China was a tragedy. However, it belonged to politics and sociology, not the TOE. I don't seem to recall true supporters of TOE to ever use such words. If so, I believe you have referred to them out of context. Citation?This message has been edited by Jacen, 01-27-2005 12:51 AM

Forum: Darwnist Ideology 02-10-2004 John T. Scopes, guilty, guilty, guilty 08-23-2003 Destroying Darwinism 05-18-2003 Darwinism and Nazism 12-09-2002 Darwinist language 11-18-2002 Falsification theory of Natural Selection 05-24-2002For almost. three. frikkin'. years. Syamsu has been promoting his nonsense about the "judgemental language" of Darwinism leading to eeeeevil.And for almost. three. frikkin'. years. Syamsu has gotten his ass handed to him on a shiny silver platter. Mainly because his arguments invariably rely on:1) Referencing books he hasn't read.
2) Insisting on new definitions for established words and phrases.
3) His personal disdain for an idea.
4) Accusing others of being prejudiced against his ideas, without actually addressing their counter-arguments.
5) Attributing moral agendas to fields where morality has no relevance.
6) Insisting that his guesswork/opinion is objective fact.Anyway... anyone who wants to keep arguing him, knock yourselves out. But reading this thread gives me a really nauseating sense of deja vu. Many, many times over. You can save yourself a lot of time by reading those old threads and realizing, "Oh... he's already had this explained to him, very patiently, several times over." (Albeit with rapidly decreasing patience as the years go on.)

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck

No worries I am done. When I first joined and brought up my evo psych background I was warned off syamsu because of his vitriol for my discipline.But I had to try it once just to see how, morbid curiosity.

As you can see in this thread I have no real opposition anymore.It is simply the truth that science is prejudiced against things going one way or another.It is true that Darwinist language overlaps with common judgementalism.It is true that natural selection is prejudicial for putting events that run counter to natural selection, when the fittest don't reproduce, outside of the theory, as neutral selection.It is established by innumerable mainstream historians that the rise of pseudobiological racism was consequent upon the Darwinian revolution.And so on. My arguments are much on safe ground, my prediction of doom reasonable, for as far as predictions of doom can be reasonable.Now you see Jacen asking for an example of judgemental language, obliviously ignoring "selfish" which was talked about numerous times in this thread. The only reason someone can be so obtuse to ignore the reference to selfishness, is to have a great chinese wall around Darwinism in their mind to protect it from criticism. Gene selfishness, which according to Dawkins, typically leads to selfisness on the individual level. I should mention this, because actually no-one here accurately reflects Dawkins opinion, which is explicitly stated on page 1 or so of his book the selfish gene, that selfish genes makes for selfish human beings, and only by *exception* leads to "altruism" in people.Other examples of judgemental language can be found in Darwin's Descent of Man, or talk.origins introduction to evolutionary biology faq ( individuals perform behaviours for their own "good"), or anywhere on the web really.Obviously Parsimonious Razor, as a practicing evolutionary psychologist, is glaringly irresponsible for not dealing with the prejudice against things going one way or another, when dealing with subjects which are mainly about going one way or another, people and their choices. You are guilty Razor, you know the prejudice is there, yet you carelessly disregard the issue. You may not know about the history of your discipline, social darwinism, but you are compelled to know about it. You are just yet another hopeful preacher who thinks to have found some perspective by which people can resolve deep emotional and identity problems.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

my prediction of doom reasonable, for as far as predictions of doom can be reasonable.

---

um...exactly!

quote:

---

Obviously Parsimonious Razor, as a practicing evolutionary psychologist, is glaringly irresponsible for not dealing with the prejudice against things going one way or another, when dealing with subjects which are mainly about going one way or another, people and their choices.

---

how is this not gibberish?