RoR: Forum

Teresa, can you summarize what your question is? Listening to a ten minute video to find out is too time-consuming.

(Edited by Philip Coates on 8/05, 6:56pm)

Post 1

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 8:02pm

(Seriously, Phil? Ten minutes? Ooookay.)

Not really, but basically the researchers use our "hunter/gatherer" beginnings as the standard of human value in terms of how self worth is measured. Because we came from small social groups, one's value to the group was never questioned. It was a given.

As civilizations and industry grew, the question of "am I really of value" arose, they claim.

My problem is with the standard used by the researchers to make their conclusions, that we're still in a collective hunter/gatherer psychology mode somehow. The researchers hope to prove some kind of innate "programming," or knowledge from these early beginnings.

I've never heard of "evolutionary psychology" before. The theories themselves are very odd to me. Has anyone else heard of this? Is it valid science?

This was posted as a response to a question I had about the video:

It is not that humans, ancient or modern, cannot or do no "understand", it is that humans are programmed, by evolution to respond to a certain type of lifestyle, which is hunting, gathering and evidently, trading. People 10,000 years ago might have been able to understand technology or the inner workings of the stock market if trained, but 400,000 years of human evolution have produced hunters and gatherers and this explains a lot about why we act the way we do.

The way who acts what way?

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 8/05, 8:13pm)

Post 2

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 10:36pm

I've heard of this before. Can't remember if it was Steven Pinker ... maybe S.J. Gould ... aaagh!

Anyway, there's a terrible part of this video (about 3-4 minutes in). I only had the energy (it's late) to 'click-forward' into the video.

I say more later, but in this one terrible part Toobey (or Cosmides) -- the man -- was talking about us all being in The Matrix. It was a denial of perception (i.e., indirect perception theory). He said it's like we're all in a 'video game' constantly mistaking our perceptions for the world out there.

He assures us that there is a world out there while, at the same time, denying that we can effectively perceive it.

Toobey & Cosmides have quite a few publications, I believe. Anyway, it's late ...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Post 3

Thursday, August 5, 2010 - 10:58pm

"One's value to the group was never questioned. It was a given."

That makes it sound like a person's value is intrinsic. Its more like an individual's value (or disvalue) to a group is very apparent in a small group where each member can witness what the other members do.

Some more concrete evolutionary psychology:

In general a man would be ok with mating with any woman, whether he likes her or not. On the other hand, in general a woman would only be ok with mating with a select few men of her most liking.

Due to:

It doesn't take much effort for a man to mate with a woman, the cost to him is low, but the potential gains in that his DNA will be copied are high.

It takes a lot of effort for a woman to birth a baby after mating with a man, the cost to her is low. And, unless she chooses a better mate, her offspring will be less capable and less desirable mating partners... Her potential immediate gains that her DNA will be copied once are high with any man, but that her DNA will be continue to be copied many times through the future are highest with the best man and lowest with the worst man.

Hence... women want love and sex and men just want sex. Where "love" is approximately Ayn Rand's definition, a sense of recognition of ones values being achieved or embodied by another person.

The more women a man mates with the more his DNA is copied. So men who have the desire to mate with more women tend to exist. Similar with women who choose the best man. Hence a basis for different standards of sexual partners between men and women, and different reasons between the sexes on what causes them to feel intimate towards another. Men get turned on by the sight of a women he imagines to be attracted to him or a woman that is turned on or a woman who isn't wearing much. Women get turned on by recognizing that they are with the best man. I'm generalizing and contrasting give me a break.

Not that a man or a woman is conscious of the benefit cost to their DNA's existence through the future when they are considering mating partners. I'm saying that this is the basis of their general feelings. Then other issues come into play like laws in our society and social effects, which modify how a person judges the cost benefit of a potential mating partner.

Evolution paired with the difference in cost of mating between men and women causes this.

"The researchers hope to prove some kind of innate "programming," or knowledge from these early beginnings." This knowledge/programming is information that is written in our DNA through natural selection. DNA creates the brain. Brain has some hardwired things that cause pain or pleasure. Your intellect can overcome hardwired feelings.

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming any conclusion in the video is correct. I'm only claiming this post is true. Feel free to point out any mistakes : ).

Post 4

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 4:34am

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that anyone here would pass judgment on a 10-minute presentation that they did not bother to watch.

If you can accept that the shape of your hand is a product of selective adaptation and genetic mutation, then why is your brain or your mind any different? Your hand can and will change within limits as you use it in certain ways. So, too, with your mind. However, your mind is no more infinitely plastic than is your hand.

Deeper than our years as hunter-gatherers were our years in trees. City life for us is much like tree life for monkeys. So, those networks are easily activated. We are pushed to be less cooperative, more competitive, pulled to be less collective, more individualist.

Moreover, trade is a new environment. Those who adapt to trade pass on those qualities -- and not by genetics but by memetics: ideas passed from one generation to the next. As trade offers advantages, trade will become more prevalent and those adapted to it -- open to the ideas having inherited them -- will do well in an agoric environment.

All in all, I found the presentation cogent and interesting.

I am not convinced that they thought through all of the implications of ritual exchange. Ritual exchange is the basis for trade. In their example, if you were to pay your hosts for dinner, they would be distanced from you -- but, indeed, you do pay: you brought a bottle of wine; before you leave you invited them to your place; you might follow up with an email or phone call thanking them for the nice time. Those are examples of payment by ritual exchange.

Mioreover, when you pay at the store, you and the clerk (acting for the owner) both say "Thank you." That reinforces the feelings of mutuality, overcoming the social distance.

Again, I found this compelling. Just watching it, though, I had some thoughts about where the theory could be improved.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/06, 4:39am)

Post 5

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 4:54am

And on a related topic ... not all dogs are the same... not all people are the same. We are not interchangeable. Much more than dogs but like them also, we learn from interacting with our environment. Our minds do change -- and moreso than do our hands. We are primarily mental creatures. That, too, is our nature, evolved over these millennia and aeons.

A taxonomy of social animals identifies classes we know from common knowledge: the Alpha leaders; the Beta followers. In addition the Gamma moves from gene pool to gene pool, preventing inbreeding. The Gamma is the perennial outsider. As such, operating on the further ranges, the Gamma discovers. Interestingly, also, Gammas will mate more often and Alphas, some of whom mate not at all -- despite what they claim.

Humans are complex. Beyond the simple taxonomies that apply to other social species, in human society, there are Traders and Guardians. Traders are open to intercourse with strangers, while Guardians protect the borders from intrusion.

We see this in the debates today about immigration -- across the entire political spectrum. There is no consensus among Objectivists on that point -- or on this, the value of the theory of evolutionary psychology -- because some Objectivists protect the grounds from intrusion while others accept trades with strangers.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/06, 4:54am)

Post 6

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 6:34am

Mike,

*****************
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that anyone here would pass judgment on a 10-minute presentation that they did not bother to watch.
*****************

I didn't pass judgment on a video I passed judgment on a premise. Get your facts straight before 'you' pass judgment.

I watched the whole thing now and have some positive things to say about it. So there.

*****************
Deeper than our years as hunter-gatherers were our years in trees. City life for us is much like tree life for monkeys. So, those networks are easily activated. We are pushed to be less cooperative, more competitive, pulled to be less collective, more individualist.

Moreover, trade is a new environment. Those who adapt to trade pass on those qualities -- and not by genetics but by memetics: ideas passed from one generation to the next.
*****************

My take is that we are hard-wired for justice (especially males). We have alarms that go off in our heads when witnessing injustice. This is evident already in a pre-school playground -- where one child knocks down another child, only to be knocked down by a third, onlooking child (who senses and acts on perceived injustice).

This means, when you think it through, that we are hard-wired for trade. Trade (i.e., getting back something for what you put into it) is just an extension of justice.

*****************
I am not convinced that they thought through all of the implications of ritual exchange. ...
*****************

Very good point.

Ed

Post 7

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 6:39am

Mike,

*******************
We see this in the debates today about immigration -- across the entire political spectrum. There is no consensus among Objectivists on that point -- or on this, the value of the theory of evolutionary psychology -- because some Objectivists protect the grounds from intrusion while others accept trades with strangers.
*******************

Give me a break. There is an 'Objectivist view' on immigration, so I don't know what you are talking about about there being no consensus. That's like saying there's no Objectivist consensus regarding the use of 'emotions' or of 'revelation' as a means to knowledge accrual.

And there is a very good reason why there isn't consensus yet on evolutionary psychology -- and it has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology, per se. It's because it's new to us.

Duh!

Ed

Post 8

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 6:59am

Ed,

I say more later, but in this one terrible part Toobey (or Cosmides) -- the man -- was talking about us all being in The Matrix. It was a denial of perception (i.e., indirect perception theory). He said it's like we're all in a 'video game' constantly mistaking our perceptions for the world out there.

Right! As if humans are incapable of being objective, or that objectivity is the exception rather than the rule. Very odd.

Mike -

Deeper than our years as hunter-gatherers were our years in trees. City life for us is much like tree life for monkeys. So, those networks are easily activated. We are pushed to be less cooperative, more competitive, pulled to be less collective, more individualist.

I'm impressed with the claim that city dwelling is like tree living. It's an entertaining and interesting idea. But cities only become necessary under certain conditions, not all human conditions. They don't exist everywhere humans do or did.

Tall structures weren't developed for mere survival. They were developed as monuments to an idea or ideas. This seems very far away from the motives of tree dwelling, if there ever were motives.

Similarly, I'm not convinced humans are not as cooperative now as we were then, or that they were less competitive than we supposedly are now.
Isn't it possible modern human beings were always geared toward individualism but lacked the technology?

Would there be marked psychological differences between children born 50,000 years ago, but raised today with our own? I doubt it.

I'm thinking these theories are more in line with cognitive determinism than anything else. The researchers even admit that they're looking for hardwired ideas, but call them "programs."

Post 9

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 7:07am

We have alarms that go off in our heads when witnessing injustice.

That is an excellent point, Ed.

Post 10

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 7:33am

The idea of Ev. Psych has roots with E.O. Wilson. Steven J. Gould was a fierce opponent of it. Steven Pinker is one of the leading thinkers/popularizers of the field.

Dean's example is a classic one. My Ev. Psych. professor at Purdue liked to use the example of the arrow plant when explaining the subject. It has one set of DNA, but three major physical forms. These forms are guided by the environment.

Ev. Psych. was interesting to me personally because, like Objectivism, it denies a false dichotomy, specifically that of nature v nurture. Ev. Psych. helps explain how the two work together and can be untangled somewhat by looking at the way nature guides and binds the effects of nurture.

Post 11

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 9:29am

Talking about the movie:

They start off talking about hunter gathers and sharing, and then in the middle they say that to a person the world is kind of like the matrix... but I like the grand finally:

They point out the Berlin wall as a social experiment, they say that in [socialism] (note: socialism seems to have been completely edited out so its not obvious that they are criticizing socialism) people are supposed to care about and [award] citizens based on their contributions to society, but in reality due to the large size of the population or something, that the leaders don't actually care about individuals contributions, so that is why [socialism] doesn't work. "Sounds nice perspectively, but turns in to a hell on earth when actually implemented."

Then they go on to criticize historians and people who run for political office when they have "no clue about how markets work", which is "amazing", "shocking".

Post 12

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 10:04am

If we are predisposed to small communities, it would explain the continuation of them in urban life -- groups like this one; social clubs. Sociologists now speak of "third spaces" not home or work, but places like the library or coffeeshop where people form communities. In the earlier cities, there were guilds and lodges. In that sense, too, Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum were the precursors of those.

An alternative would just be to get to know a million people. Impossible? Think of all the things you memorized, especially as a child, not least of which was the multiplication table. Japanese learn 3000 characters to read the newspaper. You, too, could memorize 3000 "characters." Especially as their abililty to identify themselves would aid that.

If that seems silly, the reason might be your evolutionary psychology.

Post 13

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 10:15am

ET: "Give me a break. There is an 'Objectivist view' on immigration, so I don't know what you are talking about about there being no consensus. That's like saying there's no Objectivist consensus regarding the use of 'emotions' or of 'revelation' as a means to knowledge accrual."

I am sorry to be ignorant, Ed, but please tell me what is the Objectivist view on immigration? I mean, what is it that so many here do not understand that causes us to debate the case of US versus Arizona, or Arizona's law itself, or the problem of (so-called) illegal immigration? My perception is that Objectivists here can debate this, each citing the same principlesm, because they are responding to different understandings. Guardians want to control immigration and ensure that those who enter have done so legally. Traders question the validity of the laws and want there to be no borders. We all agree that in a world of complete private property, the issue would be redefined to the satisfaction of both.

As for the justice of exchange, the balace in quid pro quo is obvious. However, the seemingly altruistic suggestion to reward stones with bread actually has a mathematical validity in game theory whereby you can bring a "rat" back to cooperation by rewarding a betrayal twice, rather than retaliating a betrayal with a punishment. That is also the basis of "reintegrative shaming" a theory of law known to the Visigoths and Cheyenne, but articulated as a result of John Braithwaite's study of regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. (Go in with a warrant and you meet the lawyers and end up in court. Go in for coffee and you can win compliance.)

Post 14

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 10:56am

> Evolutionary Psychology? - Is there any merit to this? I'm not convinced this is valid science [Teresa]

Yes, it really is a good subfield of science [see wikipedia summary below].

That doesn't mean that the various competing theories in this field (or in this thread) are all correct.

But, our minds, our entire psyche -did- evolve under survival pressure -- memory capacity, conceptualization, ability to reason, emotions, attitudes, socialization. Just like our bodies did.

So this is an -excellent- way to understand something as complex as human psychology. Not the only way, of course.

" Evolutionary psychology (EP) attempts to explain psychological traits�such as memory, perception, or language�as adaptations, that is, as the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology applies the same thinking to psychology." [wikipedia]

(Edited by Philip Coates on 8/06, 11:03am)

Post 15

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 3:46pm

Luke,

The idea of Ev. Psych has roots with E.O. Wilson. Steven J. Gould was a fierce opponent of it. Steven Pinker is one of the leading thinkers/popularizers of the field.

Thanks for clearing that up. I now remember EO Wilson being involved, too.

Ed

Post 16

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 4:35pm

Mike,

I am sorry to be ignorant, Ed, but please tell me what is the Objectivist view on immigration?

It's where you have to check-in at the border with a picture I.D., a fingerprint, and a blood-sample (to prove you aren't a criminal or biological threat), and then you get to come in.

Obtaining U.S. citizenship (and its benefits) may require much more than this, such as being as fluent in English as is a 5th grade American student, and then answering 70 out of 100 questions correctly regarding the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the "Founding" (Lockean) principles of the United States of America.

Ed

****************
Related

1) Yaron Brook video
http://arc-tv.com/open-immigration/

2) Binswanger essay in Capitalism Magazine
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/immigration/4620-Immigration-Quotas-Individual-Rights-The-Moral-and-Practical-Case-for-Open-Immigration.html

3) Tracinski essay at ARC
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5269

4) Biddle quote:

... the principle of individual rights�the basic principle of America�mandates a policy of open immigration.

http://www.craigbiddle.com/lectures.htm#immigration
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/06, 4:43pm)

Post 17

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 7:47pm

Tall structures weren't developed for mere survival. They were developed as monuments to an idea or ideas.

Tall buildings exist in cities so the same plot of expensive land can be used to support multiple levels of buildings. You don't generally see tall buildings in places with cheap land.

Other than a handful of actual monuments, like then Pyramids or the Washington monument, tall structures are pragmatic ways of advancing the survival of more people on valuable land.

Re: the topic of this post, just finished reading "Mean Genes" by Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, which posits that a lot of seemingly dysfunction behavior is the holdover of ancient instincts that used to be functional in small hunter-gatherer groups.

Basically, they say that the human genome really hasn't changed or adapted much to modern living, and that overcoming these counterproductive instincts is extremely difficult even if we understand what is going on and apply our cerebral cortex to try to adapt to the changed environment. Interesting exploration of the evolutionary psychology theory.

Post 18

Friday, August 6, 2010 - 8:06pm

Evolutionary Psychology is growing in prominence, mostly among behavioral determinists. I don't immediately dismiss that evolutionary pressures result in *influences* now on psychology - in fact there is absolutely abundantly clear evidence of this now - just when people claim any of these influences are absolute. This is as wrong as claiming there are no influences what so ever.

Aristotle once wrote that all human behavior is a complicated interaction of nature, chance, habit, and choice. His observation remains true today and is the solution to the paradox people suggest arises in the 'nature vs nurture' debate. Genes have influences on us, so does the environment, but we have the ability to choose to over ride those influences as well especially with practice and being a thoughtful introspective person, in fact choices themselves can influences our very own genetic expressions - and as recently show in the science of epigenetics, can even affect what genes our offspring will inherit from us.

For people who choose not to live thoughtful introspective lives, their environment and culture dictate most of their values and behavior. Evolutionary Psychology is just a new framework in which to make up explanations for allegedly biologically sourced influences. Some of it is kind of interesting, I quite like Matt Ridley's books, and the statistical correlations that behavioral genetics find can sometimes be useful tools in developing a complete senses of one's self. In the sense that one should identify sources of emotional reactions, it can be of value to pay attention to these because they might govern or influence some of your reactions without you realizing why.

Post 19

Saturday, August 7, 2010 - 4:11am