Evolutionary psychology

[obsrvr524]

There is evolving and devolving. What is the difference? - direction of the changing. Devolving is much much more prevalent (as the universe demonstrates). The US for example evolved into a large powerful capitalist state and is now devolving toward the lower communistic state. The direction is not the cause of the changing - change is caused - the direction is circumstantial.

And gravity is not actually an attraction - different subject.

[felix_dakat]

@Sculptor

@felix dakat

@Sculptor

I fully accept the process of natural selection.
Natural selection builds on what starts as random variations and mutations, and the needs of survival make negative traits that compromise survival less common in the population; and the reproduction of viable progeny more likley.

That is no basis for the draconian statements offered by EP. Becasuse EP leaves no room for neutral traits and the persistence of some negative traits in organisms that manage to survive despite them.

Natural Selection cannot and does not select positive traits. It simply cannot work that way. Sadly that is the unspoken assumption of the EP brigade. Natural selection works ONLY by the elimation of traits that make an organism unfit for the environmental circumstances in which is seeks to survive.

I’m not alone, as a Darwinist that thinks the Pinker brigade are a bunch of evolutionary religionists.
There has been a long-standing, subtle confusion, elegantly expressed by Fodor&Piattelli-Palmarini between;

"(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and
(2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.”
What Darwin Got Wrong

With claim 1 EP is idle speculation. But EPers run on claim two which is FALSE.

This is essentially the point of dpearture from people who accept what Darwin said, and those that want to make a career out of the obsessive production of falsifiable pronouncements. They offer books filled with idle speculations. That would be fine were there no negative ideological consequences to it. Sadly Steve Pinker’s coffee table tomes infeect society with the worst sort of genetic determinism and leave little room for the nurture argument.

EP fails because it tries to explain everything teleologically, when NS cannot support ANY teleology.

Popper accepted evolutiary theory, but said this of it; “There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious. As the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper has stated, evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”
There is no doubt that Pinker and others have de-elevated Natural Selection to a religion; a fun party game, where you pick a trait, any trait, then you argue for it being a positive trait and then demand that the reason we have the trait is because it was selected by nature; goodness/evil; agression/co-operation; selfishness/selflessness, attention/inattention, . They all scoire hits in this silly game. It is the most absurd and childish conformational bias. Totally shameful waste of good brains.

No doubt evolutionary psychology has its limits. Not all biological traits are adaptations. Some are just side effects or byproducts of traits that are adaptations. For example the complex structure of Bones is an adaptation that solves the problem of providing a strong but light framework on which soft tissue can be arranged. But the white color of Bones serves no function at all. It’s simply a side effect of the fact that bones are made of calcium.

The same thing applies to the mind. Mental modules are adaptations .

I’m not blaming you alone but the languge here is a mistake which hints at the way people, even people who ought to know better, like Dawkins, abuse their descriptions of the process of evolution.
Traits are not adaptations in any sense. They can be adaptive, or not adaptive, even counter adaptive. But calling them adaptations leans towards the idea that that is WHY we have them, which cannot be correct.
Becasuse the fact is that ALL traits emerge BEFORE they are adaptive or otherwise. They do not emerge because they are adaptations. The process begins with variation and mutation, next is selection of successful individuals. There is no selection of traits as such. Fit individuals persist with the collections of traits they have.
It is the difference between:

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected TRUE

(2) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. FALSE

Do you see what I am getting at here?

Yeah I see it. But who’s claiming organisms are selected FOR their adaptive traits? Can you give some specific examples from what I’ve posted on this thread?

[Sculptor]

@felix dakat

@Sculptor

@felix dakat

No doubt evolutionary psychology has its limits. Not all biological traits are adaptations. Some are just side effects or byproducts of traits that are adaptations. For example the complex structure of Bones is an adaptation that solves the problem of providing a strong but light framework on which soft tissue can be arranged. But the white color of Bones serves no function at all. It’s simply a side effect of the fact that bones are made of calcium.

The same thing applies to the mind. Mental modules are adaptations .

I’m not blaming you alone but the languge here is a mistake which hints at the way people, even people who ought to know better, like Dawkins, abuse their descriptions of the process of evolution.
Traits are not adaptations in any sense. They can be adaptive, or not adaptive, even counter adaptive. But calling them adaptations leans towards the idea that that is WHY we have them, which cannot be correct.
Becasuse the fact is that ALL traits emerge BEFORE they are adaptive or otherwise. They do not emerge because they are adaptations. The process begins with variation and mutation, next is selection of successful individuals. There is no selection of traits as such. Fit individuals persist with the collections of traits they have.
It is the difference between:

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected TRUE

(2) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. FALSE

Do you see what I am getting at here?

Yeah I see it. But who’s claiming organisms are selected FOR their adaptive traits? Can you give some specific examples from what I’ve posted on this thread?

Yes, my main example is…

Wait for it…

Evolutionary psychology.
All of it.
Every example.
Every page of every book of Pinker.

[felix_dakat]

If that’s true in general then you should have no problem showing how Pinker claims evolution selects FOR a particular trait. To claim that he does without showing it is an empty argument.

[felix_dakat]

One way to strengthen an evolutionary explanation is to show that it’s logic is obeyed generally. If women are choosy about sex because they can have fewer children than men by virtue of investing more in them and females in the animal kingdom generally can have fewer offspring than males then female animals in general should be choosier than males. Turns out that’s usually the case. Evolutionary theories can generate falsifiable predictions as good scientific theories are expected to do even though evolutionary biologists don’t have the luxury of rerunning evolution in their labs with some of its variables controlled and predicting the outcome.

[obsrvr524]

What is the difference between “selecting” and “selecting for”?

[Sculptor]

@felix dakat

One way to strengthen an evolutionary explanation is to show that it’s logic is obeyed generally. If women are choosy about sex because they can have fewer children than men by virtue of investing more in them and females in the animal kingdom generally can have fewer offspring than males then female animals in general should be choosier than males. Turns out that’s usually the case. Evolutionary theories can generate falsifiable predictions as good scientific theories are expected to do even though evolutionary biologists don’t have the luxury of rerunning evolution in their labs with some of its variables controlled and predicting the outcome.

You do know that men and women chose bad mates all the time?
You do know that some people chose not to have kids at all ?
Despite these counter selective processes, the human race persists with no trouble.

Everything that needed to be said about Natural Selection was completed in the first 50 years after Darwin. The rest is just career building verbage.
Evolutionary theory shows very clearly how we evolved from simple slime, to complex mammals. It offeres broad brushstrokes, and taxonomic trees. There is no way to unpick the complexity of human behaviour and to promote traits and reason FOR them. Teleology is the false consciousness of NS, and harms the way people think about it.

Dawkins once observed that human obsession with teleology might be due to the fact that we are now brought up in fully artificial surroundings, in which there is a specified purpose for all items that a new born child comes in contact with. Our domestic environments are totally safe and for everything there is a function. Young people grow into the idea that the whole would is a thing for their use and consumption, and so they also look for purpose in the rest of the universe. It takes the effort of thinking to unpack that assumption, and some people never do.

[obsrvr524]

@Sculptor

Everything that needed to be said about Natural Selection was completed in the first 50 years after Darwin. The rest is just career building verbage.
Evolutionary theory shows very clearly how we evolved from simple slime, to complex mammals. It offeres broad brushstrokes, and taxonomic trees. There is no way to unpick the complexity of human behaviour and to promote traits and reason FOR them. Teleology is the false consciousness of NS, and harms the way people think about it.

Dawkins once observed that human obsession with teleology might be due to the fact that we are now brought up in fully artificial surroundings, in which there is a specified purpose for all items that a new born child comes in contact with. Our domestic environments are totally safe and for everything there is a function. Young people grow into the idea that the whole would is a thing for their use and consumption, and so they also look for purpose in the rest of the universe. It takes the effort of thinking to unpack that assumption, and some people never do.

Then it seems the word “selection” shouldn’t be used - “selection” implies an intentional choice - “selecting one option over another” (when in reality - considering the physics - there was no other).

Perhaps - “Natural Outcome” - not “Natural Selection”.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@obsrvr524

What is the difference between “selecting” and “selecting for”?

He [Sculptor] called the expression elegant but I beg to differ. It’s pretty bad actually.

His entire point seems to be no more than this:

@Sculptor

EP leaves no room for neutral traits and the persistence of some negative traits in organisms that manage to survive despite them.

The difference between the two positions is better expressed as:

1. natural selection selects traits that belong to fit organisms (regardless of how they impact the fitness of the organism to which they belong)

2. natural selection selects positive traits i.e. traits that have a positive impact on the fitness of the organism to which they belong

Fitness is to be understood as the total number of children an organism will have during its lifetime. And a positive trait is to be understoid as a trait the possession of which increases how many children an organism will have.

He’s saying (1) is true but (2) is false and that EP believes in (2).

[Sculptor]

@Magnus Anderson

@obsrvr524

What is the difference between “selecting” and “selecting for”?

He [Sculptor] called the expression elegant but I beg to differ. It’s pretty bad actually.

His entire point seems to be no more than this:

@Sculptor

EP leaves no room for neutral traits and the persistence of some negative traits in organisms that manage to survive despite them.

The difference between the two positions is better expressed as:

1. natural selection selects traits that belong to fit organisms (regardless of how they impact the fitness of the organism to which they belong)

2. natural selection selects positive traits i.e. traits that have a positive impact on the fitness of the organism to which they belong

Fitness is to be understood as the total number of children an organism will have during its lifetime. And a positive trait is to be understoid as a trait the possession of which increases how many children an organism will have.

He’s saying (1) is true but (2) is false and that EP believes in (2).

That is essentially correct.
But the two phrases are borrowed from Fodor and Palimentari’w “What Darwin got Wrong”.
Your version of statement one is not correct since NS does not select FOR any traits at all. NS works by life or death. Whatever individuals live that have viable progeny is what is actually selected. Nature makes no direct reference to ANY specific trait. Its all about reproduction and survival. And any individuals that fail to have viable progeny are not “selected” no matter what traits they have.
The key word here is “FOR”- NS is not a purposeful or goal oriented system yet EP persistently makes that sort of claim for traits.

Here’s how functionalists prefer to articulate.
I use this as an extreme example, since the fucntion of kindeys is obvious and well known
The Kidney was not designed. The kidney has a function, but has no purpose. Whilst it is true that we would all die without a kidney that is not a warrent for claiming that the purpose of a kidney it the excretion of nitrogenous waste, the balance of salts and water in the blood; whilst those are certainly functions of the kidney, it is an abuse of langauge to suggest that having a kidney is a trait that nature has selected. Because there is a subtle but important difference between saying such things as the kidney is designed to x,y,z or the purpose of the kidney is to x,y,z.
It is true to say that invividual with kidneys have survived (ie selected), it is wrong to say that Natural Selection selected kidneys as such.
Now, when it comes to more esoteric behaviours that EP likes to make pronouncements on such as the absurd example of “road rage”, it becomes a bit of a joke. Because you can use just about any driving strategy and relate it to being a hunter/gatherer, even people that are scared of driving or being a passenger right the way to Formula One drivers.
The process is always the same. EP is asked about a trait and then just makes up shit about how some unknowble situtaion in the past “must have” given us this trait. These are called “just so” stories in the fantasy fiction section and are about as real and Aesop’s Fables.
The fact is that there is NO empirical basis form making EP claims since the viccicitudes of the selection process can date back billions of years, and focus not on specific instances but on the infintiely variable push and shive of survival and environmental change.

[Sculptor]

@obsrvr524

@Sculptor

Everything that needed to be said about Natural Selection was completed in the first 50 years after Darwin. The rest is just career building verbage.
Evolutionary theory shows very clearly how we evolved from simple slime, to complex mammals. It offeres broad brushstrokes, and taxonomic trees. There is no way to unpick the complexity of human behaviour and to promote traits and reason FOR them. Teleology is the false consciousness of NS, and harms the way people think about it.

Dawkins once observed that human obsession with teleology might be due to the fact that we are now brought up in fully artificial surroundings, in which there is a specified purpose for all items that a new born child comes in contact with. Our domestic environments are totally safe and for everything there is a function. Young people grow into the idea that the whole would is a thing for their use and consumption, and so they also look for purpose in the rest of the universe. It takes the effort of thinking to unpack that assumption, and some people never do.

Then it seems the word “selection” shouldn’t be used - “selection” implies an intentional choice - “selecting one option over another” (when in reality - considering the physics - there was no other).

Perhaps - “Natural Outcome” - not “Natural Selection”.

Yes I agree that “selection” like so many other words used have variable meanings.
I think the reason Darwin used this word is that his work started by examining “Domestic Selection” of farm animals and pets, which insights gave his the idea of how similar changes in genealogy were achieved naturally. Where man chose for the look of the chicken, dog, or cow for what he saw as favourable features; nature’s criteria is ONLY survival.
In his terms “natural” implies non-intentional. And in 1859 that was much less ambiguous than it seems to be now,
The trouble for the religiously inclined or those that find it hard to accept the word “selection” and other examples of bad langauge in evolutionary thought such as “purpose” and “for”, all conspire for people to misunderstand what NS is - misunderstand either willfully, stupidly or unconsiously.
The question as to whether evolution is teleological should not be any kind of question.
Our language is mired in telos, because that is the way we are brought up. It can be hard to avoid and a constant struggle to unpack absurd assumptions even in people so revered as Steve fucking Pinker, and Daniel dipshit Dennet, who ought to know better.
But the linguaistic contortions to describe this stuff without ambiguous teleology is hard. Looking above I see that my phrase; “nature’s criteria is ONLY survival.”, could be misconstrued.
Maybe “nature’s determiniation is ONLY survival.”?

[obsrvr524]

“Outcome”.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@obsrvr524

Then it seems the word “selection” shouldn’t be used - “selection” implies an intentional choice - “selecting one option over another” (when in reality - considering the physics - there was no other).

Perhaps - “Natural Outcome” - not “Natural Selection”.

How about “the process of something that is not necessarily human determining (or causing) how many times any given organism will reproduce during its lifetime”?

That something is called “nature”. The process of determination (or causation) is called “selection”. Hence, natural selection.

[obsrvr524]

@Magnus Anderson

@obsrvr524

Then it seems the word “selection” shouldn’t be used - “selection” implies an intentional choice - “selecting one option over another” (when in reality - considering the physics - there was no other).

Perhaps - “Natural Outcome” - not “Natural Selection”.

How about “the process of something that is not necessarily human determining (or causing) how many times any given organism will reproduce during its lifetime”?

That something is called “nature”. The process of determination (or causation) is called “selection”. Hence, natural selection.

Isn’t it easier to just use a different word than to try to educate everyone on the nuance intentions (that they always get wrong)?

[Sculptor]

@obsrvr524

@Magnus Anderson

@obsrvr524

Then it seems the word “selection” shouldn’t be used - “selection” implies an intentional choice - “selecting one option over another” (when in reality - considering the physics - there was no other).

Perhaps - “Natural Outcome” - not “Natural Selection”.

How about “the process of something that is not necessarily human determining (or causing) how many times any given organism will reproduce during its lifetime”?

That something is called “nature”. The process of determination (or causation) is called “selection”. Hence, natural selection.

Isn’t it easier to just use a different word than to try to educate everyone on the nuance intentions (that they always get wrong)?

I think people will willfully and ignorantly persist in getting it wrong.
I think science has given up pandering to fools.
But generally I agree, but sadly I am not in control of the lexicon of evolutionary theory.

[Sculptor]

@felix dakat

If that’s true in general then you should have no problem showing how Pinker claims evolution selects FOR a particular trait. To claim that he does without showing it is an empty argument.

Just read some.
He’s been off topic for quite a while. He’s recently been obsession about “human nature” and tabula rasa, so I had to trawl back quite far for him to show himself ignoring the massive cultural, historical and personal variation in sexuality to make this “just so” pronouncements @ 2: 20FF in this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=hjJAwbc5IaE

Steve Jones is more restrained and reasonable. In fact all the other speakers are far more rational on the subject.

And of course Jonathan Miller is a fucking genius.

What Pinker does on this issue and on every issue is to simply ignore the complexity of human nature and just focus on survival nd reproductive success which is NOT the main concern of people in ordinary life.
If things don’t seem to work for a trait he plays his “mismatch” card. Always he allows his theory to drive his statements, and never allows for the variety and the possibility that most traits are selectively neutral.

But even Jonathan Miller falls into the trap is “selected for”, rather than selected by, when he talks about schitzophrenics being misplaced because their brains were selected “for” small groups.

Most of the problem is with our langauge as we have been discussing. Maybe Pinker is a bit Aspergers?? Many of the successful academics I have known were.

[felix_dakat]

Thanks for the video, sculptor! I started watching it in dribs and drabs when I have a moment. I’ll comment when I’m finished.

[Sculptor]

@felix dakat

Thanks for the video, sculptor! I started watching it in dribs and drabs when I have a moment. I’ll comment when I’m finished.

Don’t bother. I can’t hold my breath that long, and you answer is most likely to be a pile of shit, since you cannot even articulate your own belief in god.

[felix_dakat]

@Sculptor

@felix dakat

Thanks for the video, sculptor! I started watching it in dribs and drabs when I have a moment. I’ll comment when I’m finished.

Don’t bother. I can’t hold my breath that long, and you answer is most likely to be a pile of shit, since you cannot even articulate your own belief in god.

Wow I didn’t know you were holding your breath. The mind and human behavior are products of evolution. So it’s a matter of how evolution produced the mind and human behavior and how to proceed researching the matter. The people who conversed with Steven Pinker in the discussion you posted we’re not nearly as dismissive of his propositions as you are. Nor were they hostile.

[Sculptor]

@felix dakat

@Sculptor

@felix dakat

Thanks for the video, sculptor! I started watching it in dribs and drabs when I have a moment. I’ll comment when I’m finished.

Don’t bother. I can’t hold my breath that long, and you answer is most likely to be a pile of shit, since you cannot even articulate your own belief in god.

Wow I didn’t know you were holding your breath. The mind and human behavior are products of evolution. So it’s a matter of how evolution produced the mind and human behavior and how to proceed researching the matter.

The generalism is known.
The rest is idle speculation. Genetic evidence is unreliable from more than a few thousand years. And humans’ behaviour is far less determined by evolution than any known species. That is what makes us a unique species.

The people who conversed with Steven Pinker in the discussion you posted we’re not nearly as dismissive of his propositions as you are. Nor were they hostile.