But of course! When a group of people express a similar behavior pattern, such as defending racist conclusions or making ev-psych style explanations, there can only be one possible explanation: there must be a genetic basis for the behavior. I can’t imagine any other reason.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Shouldn’t the evidence be what determines whether racist conclusions be defended? If the argument leading up to it is solid, why should we reject the conclusion just because it violates accepted social norms? At this point it is very unlikely that science will produce evidence to justify the claims of racial supremacists, but if racism were actually useful and accurate I fail to see why something being racist would be bad.
Not that this esoteric and ‘academic’ point is really relevant, given how quickly you are to condemn others as racists in the first place. I don’t think you’re really grasped what others are saying, because that would require effort, and the ol’ label-and-condemn routine is so very much easier.
Is evolutionary psychology a dirty term now? I’m not a biologist and it’s hard to keep up with which particular branch is inherently evil and racist.
It’s certainly true that evo psych tends to attract people who want to tell just-so stories, but the field is hardly pseudoscience. It’s just one of those inevitable consequences of being a fledgling science. The ability to study genetic change over time in depth and associate those changes with phenotypic variance is only now being granted to us – the next twenty to fifty years will be a very exciting time in neurology, cog and evo psych, and genetics.
Assuming, of course, that people like PZ don’t scare up-and-coming scientists away from the fields first.
Caledonian, as you’ve repeatedly ignored: The evidence isn’t solid. In the past couple of decades, much of the ‘hard’ evidence and argumentation for causation over correlation has also been verifiably fraudulent. It’s probably more politically irritating than it is scientifically stupid, but it’s pretty scientifically stupid as well.
Also, do you really have to colonize every new thread about this with the same argument? PZ provided a bunch of links to someone repeating the (ancient) arguments regarding race and intelligence. It even ended with an angsty Nietszche quote about going on and on repetitiously and never ending.
Call it a hint.
I just want to know if it’s time to burn my Stephen Pinker books. I don’t want to be exposed to any unclean ideology.
And we don’t know if global warming is happening, we don’t know if it’s caused by humans, and we don’t know that it will be a bad thing. The evidence just isn’t solid enough – to convince denialists.
Since Caledonian has already suggested that he finds few comments of worth on this blog, I’m thinking of taking steps to improve their quality.
The first and easiest step would be to give the boot to any pernicious, repetitive, obsessive poseur who is often one of the first to rush to make comments on any article here, and whose numerous comments are usually humorless, dismissive, and disruptive, and empty of any evidence that might support his typically anal right-wing/libertarian assertions. Getting rid of such a nuisance would immediately improve the threads around here, I’m sure.
Hmmm. Who could possibly fit that description…?
Christian, the holy prophets Cosmides and Tooby have given us this mantra that should repel any unclean thoughts:
“The central premise of the adapted mind is that there is a universal human nature”
You know, this has been difficult for me.
I have a big respect for PZ and agree with him on 98% of issues. I enjoy posting here and I like this blog. This is a good place to hear liberal opinions on scientific issues.
I’m sorry that my denunciation of James Watson’s comments as pathetic didn’t go far enough for some people. I know that I alienated others by insisting that unpopular voices should have a right to be heard- and I accept that criticism.
What can I say? I’m going to leave this blog in regret, but not in anger. It’s really been an upsetting experience to me over these last few days.
I really wish PZ the best of luck. I like him and I like his blog.
windy,
Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a universal human nature?
Christian,
Don’t worry, your Pinker books are safe from the fire. Evolutionary psychology is an established branch of evolutionary science with a voluminous literature and many eminent researchers. Robert Trivers, whose work on the evolutionary psychological basis of parental investment, parent-offspring conflict, and reciprocal altruism in the 1970s provided the basis for much of today’s leading research, was recently awarded the 2007 Crafoord Prize in Biosciences for “his fundamental analysis of social evolution, conflict and cooperation.”
Well, this got dramatic fast.
CB, don’t go – if only people who agree with PZ’s ideological stances post, only outlaws will have guns. Or whatever the blogging equivalent of that state is.
Blasphemy! Everyone knows the real explanation for everything is…
42!!!
Beyond one comment talking about the poisoned well of hatred made by both sides and my unwillingness to participate in it, I deliberately avoided the Watson threads.
And here we are, a couple of days later. The natural and logical consequences of the entrenched, stupid intolerance of exhibited on both sides of the issue has made on of my favorite blogs look like The New Republic. Congratulations. After reading these threads, and people leaving and juvenile threats being made, I get to say you’ve almost all acted like twats and you all need a time-out.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a universal human nature?
Is there any evidence that there is? Or at least that there is a non-trivial human nature.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a universal human nature?
the point of my too-obscure joke was that some EP’ers advocate a more universal human nature than others, and would therefore be less “heretical” in light of the recent discussion.
Short answer, as I understand it: Evolutionary psychology is not inherently evil and racist and/or sexist. Unfortunately, many of the field’s alleged findings, especially as reported to the public, contain an order of magnitude more bias than actual data, and it suffers from the general malady, epidemic during the 19th and early 20th centuries, of people using it to dress up their own stupid bigotry.
coathanger,
Is there any evidence that there is?
You mean apart from, say, the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species? If there’s no human nature, how is this possible?
To me the just-so stories look more like “the closer you get to humans, the worse the science gets”… But I’m optimistic that it doesn’t have to stay that way. Considering comment 10, evolutionary psychology can hardly be called “a fledgling science”.
Also, newsflash: the post was humor. You failed to notice, Caledonian, and made the first comment about this failure. Even though the post says “Humor” in the “Category” line. You are clearly more autistic than I am.
To me the just-so stories look more like “the closer you get to humans, the worse the science gets”… But I’m optimistic that it doesn’t have to stay that way. Considering comment 10, evolutionary psychology can hardly be called “a fledgling science”.
Also, newsflash: the post was humor. You failed to notice, Caledonian, and made the first comment about this failure. Even though the post says “Humor” in the “Category” line. You are clearly more autistic than I am.
I wish you wouldn’t ban Caledonian. He’s been persistent, but not disruptive, which IMHO, is almost the only worthy reason to ban commenters. I will think much less of this site after such a ban.
Wait- was PZ talking about banning me- or Caledonian?
I supposed he was talking about me because I’ve made a few first posts today and made a couple of sarky comments (above).
I’m confused. and upset.
I’m quite happy to leave if PZ feels that I’m detracting from the quality of the blog- even though it would make me pretty sad to leave such a consistently great blog.
Azky,
Unfortunately, many of the field’s alleged findings, especially as reported to the public, contain an order of magnitude more bias than actual data
This is exactly the kind of broad, wishy-washy attack on evolutionary biology in general that creationists make. Refer to unidentified “findings,” use weasel words like “many,” and make unspecific accusations of bias and nefarious motives, in order to try and discredit the discipline as a whole without actually making any serious scientific critique.
CB, don’t go. A thick skin is good for more than protection from germs.
PZ, I’m wondering if anyone has discovered the gene that makes people want to blog. By the way, I used to blog but I don’t anymore. I’m wondering if quitting is determined by a different gene.
Reproductive isolation and a relatively consistent set of anatomical, physiological, and genetic patterns do not imply the existence of “human nature” in the sense the term is usually meant, that implying the existence of a set-in-stone deterministic set of inborn behavioral traits common to all humans and which cause different humans to inevitably act in certain ways, with the present set of social arrangements and patterns as the predestined result. The fact that a person smart enough to turn on a computer could possibly be confused on this point baffles me.
PZ:
Oh, give it a rest already. If anyone in the recent run fits your description, it’s John Smith, not Caledonian. And since when is being first to comment an offense?
Christian:
I’m sorry to hear that, I like your comments. It’s hard to tell from your measured ‘tone’ that it was getting to you personally.
Chris’s parody of EP was great, btw.
No, he has been disruptive. He’s a one-note critic, and has been for several years now — and he openly admits his contempt for the site. That and his obsessive degree of commenting are a grating pain-in-the-ass to me, and I’m the one who has to manage this crap. If he can’t restrain himself and make an effort, I’m not going to put up with him.
Kicking him out would probably also reduce the posting volume by 10%, and clear away the particularly acrid, bitter flavor from the place.
(Christian Burnham, there is no intent or cause to ban you — disagreement is OK, and you’re welcome to stay on as long as you want.)
If you, as you seem to be, chastizing me for failing to distill the entirety of the literature of a field and the criticism thereof and provide a point-by-point refutation, with extensive citations, of every claim I find dubious in a blog comment made with the implicit but clear intent of articulating a general state of affairs in layman’s terms, you’re either dishonest or insane. Either way, I find your comparison ironic because this is exactly the sort of unreasonable demand Creationists tend to make in spoken debates.
Ah, don’t worry about it. I am pretty sure that he was not referring to you.
Christian, PZ’s not talking at all about banning you.
Actually, there were folks in the Watson threads that made Caledonian look full of sweet reason.
My main beef with Caledonian is that he 1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight and 2) very, very rarely supports or clarifies his position. Something he actually did a bit of in the Watson threads.
He’s obnoxious, but not a troll.
Wait- was PZ talking about banning me- or Caledonian?
I’m rather new and sporadic here, but it seems pretty obvious that he was directing his snark towards Caledonian. (And wasn’t being serious in banning… Just twisting his kind of complaints.)
ASD of some form (Asperger’s, perhaps) would go a long way towards explaining Caledonian’s behavior. Unfortunately, it’s not much of an excuse. I have Asperger’s as well and I manage to not be that level of an irritant. I think…
“Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight”
This sounds like trollish behavior IMO.
Graculus,
“1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight[…]”
Wouldn’t that qualify as a subtle form of trolling?
I can’t resolve this statement:
My main beef with Caledonian is that he 1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight and 2) very, very rarely supports or clarifies his position.
with this:
He’s obnoxious, but not a troll.
The first statement is the definition of a certain kind of troll.
Incidentally, PZ and others with some knowledge here…
One of the common practices in evaluating innate vs. learned behavior seems to be the assumption that any behavior common to all, or nearly all, cultures is probably innate. If it’s a relatively basic behavior or organizational principle, though, can it actually be ruled out with any confidence that the behavior may have originated, for whatever reason, very early in human social evolution, prior to the dispersing of modern humans throughout the world, and have become part of the learned behaviors of all the descendents of that initial society? …Is this phrasing making sense?
My main beef with Caledonian is that he 1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight…
And here I was on the verge of abandoning all hope after all these years that anyone who actually posts here realizes that.
A cookie for you, says I!
Ah- OK PZ cleared it up- he was referring to Caledonian.
As for me- I think I need a rest of a couple of weeks from posting here. Yes- I was brought almost to tears by some of the comments on the Watson thread. I don’t think I did a great job of articulating my position and fell into the position of defending comments I completely disagreed with on point of principle. Someone called my defense an enablement of racism and that really hurt. My post was even featured on some feminist blog as an example of kow-towing to racists.
I let myself get too caught up in some of these issues. Really- I need a life.
For the record I disagree completely with Caledonian’s libertarianism, but I think that he/she is nowhere near worthy of banning. I think Caledonian intentionally walks a dangerous line and annoys the hell out of some people. Half of me wants to defend him/her and the other half wants to scream at him/her. Whatever- I would be sad to see him/her go and urge PZ to rethink this one.
Anyway- I plan on doing a tearful resignation from this blog every Friday from now on- just to test who’s supporting me.
Yes, but they stay on those few threads, because they know they have nothing to contribute elsewhere. In other words, they shut up for most of the year.
I don’t even think he wants to have a fight. He just seems to take for granted that a) everyone who isn’t stupid understands everything he mentions, so there’s no need to explain anything; b) everyone who doesn’t understand something he mentions is stupid beyond any hope of explanation, so there’s no need to explain anything. It logically follows that everyone who asks him for an explanation is stupid beyond all hope. Let me diagnose the general lack of empathy that comes from having more of Asperger’s “syndrome” than I: he doesn’t seem to understand that there are intelligent people who don’t think in exactly the same ways as he does.
Is Caledonian beyond all hope of learning empathy? That is an interesting question. Someone should try to test it… it could only be a win-win situation.
Yes, but they stay on those few threads, because they know they have nothing to contribute elsewhere. In other words, they shut up for most of the year.
I don’t even think he wants to have a fight. He just seems to take for granted that a) everyone who isn’t stupid understands everything he mentions, so there’s no need to explain anything; b) everyone who doesn’t understand something he mentions is stupid beyond any hope of explanation, so there’s no need to explain anything. It logically follows that everyone who asks him for an explanation is stupid beyond all hope. Let me diagnose the general lack of empathy that comes from having more of Asperger’s “syndrome” than I: he doesn’t seem to understand that there are intelligent people who don’t think in exactly the same ways as he does.
Is Caledonian beyond all hope of learning empathy? That is an interesting question. Someone should try to test it… it could only be a win-win situation.
For my part, I expressed my hopes that Caledonian would actually refine his behavior, which I pointed to as less than desireable, with the air that he wasn’t talking to ants but people. And I, like the vast majority, simply asked for even where to begin looking for info on what he was referenceing. I, like all the rest, got nothing.
Also aside from optimism, PZ does have to manage this monster of a blog, so I can see where the frustration begins to mount after days of battle royal going on in his threads, basically taking the place over.
As for you CB, please stay. Your comments and thoughts are appreciated.
You’re more right than you know. But let us say rather that I have too much misplaced faith in the ability of intelligent people to overcome obstacles.
This will probably be the last. It was a pleasure debating with some of you.
:-D
:-D
Azky,
Reproductive isolation and a relatively consistent set of anatomical, physiological, and genetic patterns do not imply the existence of “human nature” in the sense the term is usually meant,
I don’t think you have any idea of the sense in which the term is usually meant, and in any case here we are talking about the sense in which evolutionary psychologists, and specifically Tooby and Cosmides, are using it.
…that implying the existence of a set-in-stone deterministic set of inborn behavioral traits common to all humans and which cause different humans to inevitably act in certain ways, with the present set of social arrangements and patterns as the predestined result.
That’s not an accurate description of the meaning of “human nature” as used in evolutionary psychology. It’s a parody. You’re attacking a parody, just like a creationist parody of physical evolution (“Those crazy evilutionists! They say we’re descended from Monkeys! Oh, and did you know Hitler was an evolutionist?”).
Of course, the reason you keep making accusations of bias and nefarious motive, and misrepresenting evolutionary psychology as the crudest form of genetic determinism, is that you have no substantive critique to offer, isn’t it?
Granted, I’ve never seen a living breathing creationist… but I think you have too little faith in that. Otherwise you wouldn’t say the opposite.
In any case, I will not forget your lasting contribution: the Tc as the unit of insanity. Just please explain if the scale is linear, logarithmic or whatever. :-)
Granted, I’ve never seen a living breathing creationist… but I think you have too little faith in that. Otherwise you wouldn’t say the opposite.
In any case, I will not forget your lasting contribution: the Tc as the unit of insanity. Just please explain if the scale is linear, logarithmic or whatever. :-)
Caledonian- for what it’s worth- I find that after I tune out your standard superciliousness, you often make a lot of sense and are even likable, though I admit it’s an acquired taste.
I still think you were unjustly maligned in the Watson threads, but that’s because you choose to walk a dangerous line and do it with glee. I disagree with all this talk of banning.
Anyway- time for me to take my promised 2 week break from teh Pharyngula. I need to calm down and I also need to get a life.
I feel much the same way about Caledonian’s comments as I do about firearms. I find the sound and the thunder entertaining, as long as they’re pointed in a sensible direction.
The amount of time Cal spends putting holes in paper targets and making watermelons explode, versus the amount of time spent shooting up shopping malls, metaphorically speaking, is, I imagine, the point of debate.
If that’s not what researchers in the field actually think, good. However, please square your assertion that this is not more or less what they think, at least in crude approximateion, with, for instance, people like yourself who seem to take for granted that the present level of gender discrimination in society reflects the inherent psychological characteristics of male and female humans as opposed to an element of cultural baggage that may perhaps have served a purpose once but has been doing more harm than good for longer than anyone presently alive has been so and both can and should be pitched out.
Jason, since you’ve asserted some three times in one post that Azky has completely misrepresented EvoPsych’s definition of human nature, would you please share a rough summary of it, or a link to one?
Actually, I wasn’t aware that the phrase “human nature” was even used outside of folk psychology and philosophy. If it in fact is, I suppose I may well have misrepresented the definition of it in those other usages, though I don’t see what relevance that fact has to my skepticism about what strike me as premature and self-serving arguments advanced in favor of biological determinism, crude or otherwise.
Hey, Seems to be a lot of huffing and puffing going on. Reminds me of kindergarten. But folks, the Killfile is your friend. Three strikes and you’re Caledonian (Gone baby, gone). Save your sanity.
Azky,
If that’s not what researchers in the field actually think, good.
It isn’t.
However, please square your assertion that this is not more or less what they think, at least in crude approximateion, with, for instance, people like yourself who seem to take for granted that the present level of gender discrimination in society reflects the inherent psychological characteristics of male and female humans as opposed to an element of cultural baggage that may perhaps have served a purpose once but has been doing more harm than good for longer than anyone presently alive has been so and both can and should be pitched out.
I have never said, and do not believe, that “the present level of gender discrimination in society reflects the inherent psychological characteristics of male and female humans.” I have said, and do believe, that there are significant psychological differences between males and females and that those differences likely explain in part the gender differences in social, political, and economic circumstances that we observe.
I tend to view Caledonian’s contribution to this blog in the same way Dawkins was portrayed on South Park;
“he learned using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you”
Which is not to say he isn’t correct in most of his argumentative points, but as a strategy its unlikely to win him too many friends.
As for the race thread I certainly wouldn’t put his comments in the same category as that John Smith character and were at least capable of being countered with empirical data – although Caledonian failed himself to provide enough of that to bolster his points.
By the way PZ cannot ban Christian Burnham.
Imagine the headlines on Uncommon Descent!
Do you, or do you not, believe that the present level of gender discrimination in society is justified, or at least made inevitable, by biologically deterministic elements of neurology and psychology?
James Stein:
Here’s a description from Pinker, which I think most evolutionary psychologists would basically endorse:
You mean apart from, say, the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species? If there’s no human nature, how is this possible?
Well, it could be that we have built a complex schema that allows us to sort things is a manner that makes sense to us and yet has no real corollary in the real world. You know, we make up a group, name it, and then claim that it has a nature. Remeber back in the good old days when other races weren’t the same species as us? That was so great.
I doubt that Caledonian is capable of behaving in any mode other than that of reactionary, contrarian troll. I’d be curious to see if Caledonian could sustain an independent blog, advancing original arguments, and defending original positions. As it is, sniping in every single Pharyngula thread at everybody else with the effrontery to respond is just plain boring, predictable, parasitic behavior.
If I saw Caledonian’s blog in PZ’s blogroll, I’d check it out. As for the roll played in these threads, why not find some high school kid to code a bot to troll in Cal’s name? The challenge would be to tone down the empathy.
coathanger,
You’re still not making any sense. What is this “complex schema that…has no real corollary in the real world” that you’re referring to? Are you seriously claiming that the genetic and anatomical differences between humans and, say, goldfish are not “real world” differences?
Are you seriously claiming that the genetic and anatomical differences between humans and, say, goldfish are not “real world” differences?
No, I’m saying that the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not necessarily correspond with the real world and that the way we figure out who is human is based more on social and linguistic factors than most would have you believe. Moreover, “a set of emotions, motives, and cognitive abilities shared throughout the species” is certainly a traditional view of what human nature is, and is not generally how we determine who is human, or is not “the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species”
Something interesting just showed up in the sidebar…
99% Genetic? Individual Differences in Executive Functions Are Almost Perfectly Heritable
How can this be, after all we know that environmental factors utterly dwarf genetics with regards to human cognitive traits…
There is nothing wrong with evolutionary psychology as a field in principle. Obviously all our mental faculties evolved. However, the way it is practiced (by many) and presented in the media is misleading and irresponsible.
It tends to attract successful people in developed countries who want pseudoscientific explanations for why history has played out in their favor. For some real stomach-churning examples, see this “Darwin at the London School of Economics” cluster of econ-quacks.
People doing the best evolutionary psychology rarely identify themselves as such, and are in different fields. Terence Deacon’s (a neuroscientist) book on language evolution is grounded in actual scientific research. It is much better than Pinker’s, which is grounded in pat, self-serving narratives to justify cultural norms, then lightly dusted with cherry-picked results from the literature.
Hey Christian,
Someone implied in another thread I was just about the same as a Nazi appeaser because I agree that, for some unknown reason, group differences in intellectual ability exist. When something like that happens, you just have to stand up and laugh. These people know nothing about you, your relationships, your emotions, or your history. In other words, it’s not a big deal.
I’ve worked with plenty of kids over the years and the same patterns you see in their behaviors display themselves on boards like these. With the combination of anonymity and lack of accountability, you see some comments that are just plain mean and designed for maximum hurt.
It seems fairly likely that the tenor of some posters’ comments are due to a touch of PDD, Asperger’s, or autism. This is hardly surprising due to the salience that this kind of medium has for many on the autistic spectrum. If one goes in recognizing this, how angry can one really get about comments on an ephemeral forum?
My advice? When the emotions start welling up due to something someone says online you should:
a) go to the gym,
b) eat a nice meal,
c) listen to some relaxing music,
d) have sex, or
e) do all four of the above at the same time, if you’re really talented.
The real world is not writ on a monitor.
Stick around, I’ve been lurking for a long while and I like your comments.
~6~
It seems to me that the main problem with evolutionary psychology is the psychology. The pure cognitive science approach, with its speculations on modularity and symbol-processing, and reliance of folk psychology, is pretty unlikely to begin with. But when you start talking about how your abstract speculative account of the mind evolved you’ve gone off the deep-end. Any account of the evolution of behaviour would surely have to be heavily steeped in neurobiology and developmental neurobiology. Changes in behaviour would involve changes in the development of the brain and would be constrained by that. How can you even begin to talk about the subject if you ignore biology as a matter of doctrine?
Looks like they discuss those points in re the study’s limitations:
coathanger,
No, I’m saying that the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not necessarily correspond with the real world and that the way we figure out who is human is based more on social and linguistic factors than most would have you believe.
Still nonsensical, I’m afraid. In what way does “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” not correspond to the real world? You’re now saying that the “animals” we classify as human beings are imaginary are you?
Anyone have any thoughts about James Watson’s recent comments and history of similar thinking?
poke,
I have no idea why you think evolutionary psychologists “ignore biology as a matter of doctrine.” Where did you get that strange idea from?
And why would “any account of the evolution of behaviour … surely have to be heavily steeped in neurobiology and developmental neurobiology?” It’s like saying any account of the evolution of physical traits would have to be heavily steeped in cellular biology and biochemistry. An evolutionary account of a psychological trait is based on the same basic evolutionary concepts and processes as an evolutionary account of a physical trait—reproduction, genes, fitness, natural selection, and so on.
thalarctos,
I think he was being sarcastic.
From that article:
That study seems to have shown that genes affecting Executive Functions react to environment in a consistent way; i.e. identical twins (identical genes, identical environment) differ from each other only slightly in regards to Executive Function, while fraternal twins (half identical genes, identical environment) differ proportionally to their shared genes.
Jason,
The “autonomy of psychology” is a founding principle of cognitive science. The idea, due to Chomsky, is, as I said, to ignore biology as a matter of doctrine. Modern cognitive scientists accept it to greater or lesser degree. Regardless, there’s no biological evidence for computationalism, symbol-processing, modularity, or anything else the likes of Pinker, Cosmides and Tooby are enamored with, in the brain.
It’s more like saying any account of the evolution of physical traits would have to be steeped in biology and developmental biology (these would be the bodily analogues of neurobiology and developmental neurobiology). And the good ones are. To continue the analogy, EP is like studying the evolution of the humors, or some other long-discredited article of folk physiology.
Unless you know something about the underlying biology and development of a trait, behavioural or physical, your evolutionary speculations are going to amount to nonsense.
What the heck. It’s Friday night, I got nothing better to do than post on a blog.
Caledonian, even though I disagree with your comments, I didn’t find them tough to swallow. I reacted very differently to your comments and some other guy; the guy who started yelling; He Who Must Not Be Named; JS.
It’s not you, or CB.
I still don’t see associating skin color with intelligence. I think that’s a mistake. It wouldn’t lead to the same problems here, but look at what this kind of thinking justified: Nazi Germany is one example of negative stereotypes gone crazy. It wouldn’t with you; I feel confident saying that. But just think it over; this kind of thinking has lead to many unfortunate historical events. I’d hate it if your kind of thinking took over.
I want to change the subject, frankly. So here goes:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/DDB9SQVJ3.DTL
Please, everyone, go have fun with this idea.
It’s been a hard week in Lake Morris.
poke,
The “autonomy of psychology” is a founding principle of cognitive science. The idea, due to Chomsky, is, as I said, to ignore biology as a matter of doctrine.
Well, whatever Chomsky might have said, evolutionary biologists do not “ignore biology.” Biology obviously underlies all of evolutionary psychology, since the brain is a biological organ and psychological traits arise from physical traits of the brain.
Regardless, there’s no biological evidence for computationalism, symbol-processing, modularity, or anything else the likes of Pinker, Cosmides and Tooby are enamored with, in the brain.
What are you talking about? There is overwhelming evidence for modularity and computationalism from neurobiology.
It’s more like saying any account of the evolution of physical traits would have to be steeped in biology and developmental biology (these would be the bodily analogues of neurobiology and developmental neurobiology). And the good ones are.
Nonsense. Evolutionary accounts of physical traits are descriptions of those traits in terms of genes, adaptation, environment, selection pressure, fitness and so on. The same concepts and processes are used to generate evolutionary accounts of psychological traits. Obviously, any account of any trait, physical or psychoilogical, must be consistent with the laws and principles that govern lower-level biological processes, but I have no idea why you would think that is not the case for evolutionary psychological accounts.
sanDiego @65 for the win!
nice one.
PZ Myers wrote
Oh PZ please don’t do that! He’s no more annoying than AFDave is on the RDF Evolution & Natural Selection forum. Which is pretty annoying and is it annoying enough to quell freedom of expression? At least Caligula.. Calidick.. whatever.. doesn’t pretend to be more than one person – not that AFDave does either (I’m thinking about some of the nutjob fly-bys on RDF).
Besides, he(?) is kinda cute in a way… like the guy who tells a gal that it’s 9 inches by his ruler and she says to herself: honey, if that puppy was 6 it would have to know how to multiply.
Jason said “Nonsense. Evolutionary accounts of physical traits are descriptions of those traits in terms of genes, adaptation, environment, selection pressure, fitness and so on.”
Yup… and have been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power. One of the themes of biology for the last 10 years (and this blog) has been re-integrating development with evolution, recognizing the complexity of the relationship between genotypic diversity and phenotypic plasticity, and generally giving up on bean-bag genetics as a useful mode of describing how populations and species change over time.
I think the worst thing about the most recent spats with Caledonian is that since he never sources his opinions, it’s impossible to tell which he is more ignorant about: statistics or biology.
He’s an intellectually lazy shouter and a tedious bore, and PZ has every right to do whatever he wants with him. You can only engage with a rigid self-righteousness for so long.
miko,
Yup… and have been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power.
Another typically vacuous criticism of evolutionary psychology. Which accounts have been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power? What argument or evidence was presented to justify the claim of inadequacy?
Of course, evolutionary accounts of physical traits have also “been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power” by various critics of evolution.
The fact that an evolutionary explanation of either a physical or a psychological trait “has been found” by some person or other to be “inadequate” obviously doesn’t mean the claim of inadequacy is justified.
1960s-70s: behavioral ecology (antagonistic pleiotropy, evolutionarily stable strategy, inclusive fitness, optimal foraging, parent-offspring conflict, reciprocal altruism…)
The combination of behavioral ecology with preexisting approaches produced multiple evolutionary schools of human behavior. These schools sharply contrast in some areas, but are mutually influencing in others.
behavioral ecology + human ethology -> human sociobiology
behavioral ecology + cultural ecology -> human behavioral ecology (Darwinian anthropology)
behavioral ecology + cultural selectionism -> dual inheritance
behavioral ecology + cognitivism -> evolutionary psychology
behavioral ecology + group selection -> multilevel selection
behavioral ecology + developmental psychology -> evolutionary developmental psychology
Still nonsensical, I’m afraid. In what way does “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” not correspond to the real world? You’re now saying that the “animals” we classify as human beings are imaginary are you?
Do you not understand the difference between a set and an individual?
Jason: “Of course, evolutionary accounts of physical traits have also “been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power” by various critics of evolution.”
That’s exactly what I said… they have been. But not by “critics of evolution”–by evolutionary biologists. That’s how science works: you keep looking for better or more complete explanations, e.g. by integrating developmental biology into ideas about phenotypic change.
Your view of evolutionary biology is limited and out of date (based on your description at the end of #71), as is that of most self-styled evolutionary psychologists. Seriously, we’re talking about people who come up with adapationist explanations for Jews being good at math from money lending. That shit isn’t even “fringe” for EP.
Shouldn’t the evidence be what determines whether racist conclusions be defended?
The evidence should be what determines whether Caledonian is a blithering idiot.
I get to say you’ve almost all acted like twats and you all need a time-out.
That’s not exactly the best language form making your point.
“Is there any evidence that there is?”
You mean apart from, …
Nice quote mining. Go back to the second sentence that you omitted.
Wait- was PZ talking about banning me- or Caledonian?
I supposed he was talking about me because I’ve made a few first posts today and made a couple of sarky comments (above).
I’m confused. and upset.
You should be upset about your own inability to process information, and a certain amount of self-centeredness. PZ was obviously talking about Caledonian.
The “autonomy of psychology” is a founding principle of cognitive science. The idea, due to Chomsky, is, as I said, to ignore biology as a matter of doctrine. Modern cognitive scientists accept it to greater or lesser degree.
Complete and utter bollocks. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science says,
is most simply defined as the scientific study either of mind or of intelligence (e.g. Luger 1994). It is an interdisciplinary study drawing from relevant fields including psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, computer science, biology, and physics.
THREADS!
Threads, threads, threads. I know that you can’t sort this out yourself but it would be worth talking to ScienceBlogs about it. That way those who like feeding trolls can talk to Caledonian, and I can ignore it all.
Failing that, having the author name at the top rather than the bottom of the post would mean I wouldn’t get half-way through reading a load of right-wing wank before going “hang on, is this… oh yes” over and over again.
But really. THREADS!
I still don’t see associating skin color with intelligence. I think that’s a mistake.
It is a mistake, but not merely a mistake. Making the mistake is highly correlated with certain political and social attitudes.
It is a mistake, but not merely a mistake. Making the mistake is highly correlated with certain political and social attitudes.
BTW, this is a fact that all those “it’s just a matter of scientific evidence” folks aren’t so equanimous about.
No, I’m saying that the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not necessarily correspond with the real world and that the way we figure out who is human is based more on social and linguistic factors than most would have you believe.
I would note that the way we tell whether these these posts are produced by humans is not by locating the authors and checking their genetic and anatomical characteristics.
Christian, don’t go!
Many are the times that I’ve been reading an intelligent, thoughtful comment and thought “wow, who wrote this”, only to find your name below it. Seriously, you’re one of the reasons I like reading Pharyngula.
However, if blogging is your life, I do think you should have a couple of weeks break. There’s a whole world of things to do out there. Go and enjoy yourself!
Caledonian, I’m less enamoured of. However, if he could greatly tone down the contrariness, I’d perhaps change my mind. At the moment, if Pharyngula was a pub (what an idea!), Caledonian would be the one standing alone in the corner (probably thinking that everyone else were ass-hats).
I was too tired last night to process this… this is a typical Caledonian oracle. Does it mean that Caledonian confirms having Asperger’s? Or does “more right” actually mean that I myself don’t have enough empathy to feel into what Caledonian thinks and have therefore completely failed to understand him? “If you go to war with Persia, a great empire will fall.”
That’s right. I can’t tell if he said one thing or its opposite. Just because I don’t precisely think à la calédonienne. I bet I would understand an explanation… I’d love to test that.
Speaking of Asperger’s… truth machine, you fortunately don’t post that often, and you are actually capable of arguing about a topic and mentioning evidence (case in point: comment 84), but when you post, you commonly make lots of very short posts in a row that don’t differ much from Caledonians “Wrong.” and “wrong and stupid” posts. They, too, get tedious after a while. Kseniya made great fun of you on the “Wells lies. Again.” thread: “All is as it should be: the truth machine generates truth statements in small, easily digestible chunks.”
Erm… topic? My two cents go in much the same direction as comment 70. Research into the geographical distribution of various features of whatever intelligence is might prove interesting — but so far all such research has been about a correlation between intelligence and skin color, which is indeed a category mistake because nothing whatsoever compels these “two” traits to be inherited together in the human population (yes, singular).
I was too tired last night to process this… this is a typical Caledonian oracle. Does it mean that Caledonian confirms having Asperger’s? Or does “more right” actually mean that I myself don’t have enough empathy to feel into what Caledonian thinks and have therefore completely failed to understand him? “If you go to war with Persia, a great empire will fall.”
That’s right. I can’t tell if he said one thing or its opposite. Just because I don’t precisely think à la calédonienne. I bet I would understand an explanation… I’d love to test that.
Speaking of Asperger’s… truth machine, you fortunately don’t post that often, and you are actually capable of arguing about a topic and mentioning evidence (case in point: comment 84), but when you post, you commonly make lots of very short posts in a row that don’t differ much from Caledonians “Wrong.” and “wrong and stupid” posts. They, too, get tedious after a while. Kseniya made great fun of you on the “Wells lies. Again.” thread: “All is as it should be: the truth machine generates truth statements in small, easily digestible chunks.”
Erm… topic? My two cents go in much the same direction as comment 70. Research into the geographical distribution of various features of whatever intelligence is might prove interesting — but so far all such research has been about a correlation between intelligence and skin color, which is indeed a category mistake because nothing whatsoever compels these “two” traits to be inherited together in the human population (yes, singular).
I should have clarified that I don’t think it’s a method of thinking that is at issue. It’s that Caledonian takes lots of assumptions for granted and therefore doesn’t mention them, leaving everyone at a loss who doesn’t start from the same assumptions.
I should have clarified that I don’t think it’s a method of thinking that is at issue. It’s that Caledonian takes lots of assumptions for granted and therefore doesn’t mention them, leaving everyone at a loss who doesn’t start from the same assumptions.
Back to the original subject, I remember reading about an old German textbook (don’t know if it was Nazi era or before) that claimed that Jews have a genetic tendency towards Lamarckism. And yes, the author wasn’t joking.
As some folk seem to get annoyed over the serial comments of others why not limit the comments to one comment and one reply from everyone?
I read a book Watson wrote and in it he criticized people who are against GMO food. Now, there may be valid reasons to criticize them, but he stated was that GMO foods were going to solve world hunger.
That’s when I realized he was a fool. He actually was arguing that there companies would invest millions of dollars to develop foods that were easily accessible to the world’s poorest people. Like, free not as in beer, but as in air. Meaning free, essentially.
Yeah, Monsanto’s gonna invest in technology that will put them right out of business. Sure thing. Make their own product so cheap as to be valueless, instead of, oh, I dunno… using IP law to INCREASE the scarcity of food, end the ageless practice of people sharing seed, and increase profits.
Watson may be a genius but he’s a dumbass.
substitute age-old for ageless. OIt’s early. yeawn.
Commenting on a bunch of points:
PZ, re: Caledonian: I can’t seem to dig it up, but TNH of Making Light had a list of excellent rules for keeping forums civilized. One of those was essentially that you can only have one pet troll at a time, or they start playing off each other.
Unfortunately, Cal seems to have found a loophole in that, by playing off all the drive-bys and borderline trolls. But you (PZ) aren’t blameless here, either — when was the last time you disemvowelled a Cal-gram, much less the “shrapnel” from the bombs he loves to toss?
poke @#69: Chomsky says a lot of stuff, some fraction of which is useful. He does not get to redefine evo-psych on his own terms! Evolutionary Psychology is an “ongoing discussion”, indeed more of an intellectual brawl. Anybody who tries to pick out one perspective or theme, and identify that with the entirety, has missed the point and needs to be smacked down. (I’m not entirely innocent here, but I do try to accept verbal smackdowns with good grace.)
Evolutionary processes are a basic part of science in general — not just studying them, but surviving them! Evo-psych in particular is currently in a phase of wild diversity-building, as it expands into its new niche. Some of those ideas will survive reality-testing, criticism, and competition… but most won’t. That’s how science works, and anybody who gripes about “you’re not respecting my ideas” has completely missed the point.
And there certainly is such a thing as human nature: It starts with mammalian adaptation, extends that to primate social interactions — and then flowers into the ultimate flexibility offered by abstract reasoning. The part that makes us different from chimps and gorillas is, precisely, our ability to pick and choose among instinctual options, and even to write new pages into the rulebook!
but when you post, you commonly make lots of very short posts in a row that don’t differ much from Caledonians “Wrong.” and “wrong and stupid” posts.
False and ad hominem. In any case I surely already know what sorts of posts I make, you I don’t need some condescending ass to tell me.
Kseniya made great fun of you on the “Wells lies. Again.” thread: “All is as it should be: the truth machine generates truth statements in small, easily digestible chunks.”
That seems like a good thing, so it’s hardly making fun of me. I do often make pithy cogent points — that’s quite different from what Caledonian does.
As some folk seem to get annoyed over the serial comments of others why not limit the comments to one comment and one reply from everyone?
Why cater to jackasses who have nothing better to do than criticize style?
Make their own product so cheap as to be valueless, instead of, oh, I dunno… using IP law to INCREASE the scarcity of food, end the ageless practice of people sharing seed, and increase profits.
Not just IP law, but “terminator seeds”.
Christian,
Should stay.
Caledonian,
Hmmmm, whatever PZ decides.
BTW, Marjanović, in case you hadn’t noticed, criticizing my posting style doesn’t stop it, but rather tends to breed more. So if you want to be effective, it’s better to keep your yap shut.
poke @#69: Chomsky says a lot of stuff, some fraction of which is useful. He does not get to redefine evo-psych on his own terms!
poke said “cognitive science”, which is even more absurd than ev psych.
And there certainly is such a thing as human nature: It starts with mammalian adaptation …
it seems we’re right back to the original reference in this thread, Cosmides and Tooby’s empty “The central premise of the adapted mind is that there is a universal human nature”. Sort of like the premise of sleeping pills is a universal dormative nature.
P.S.
Speaking of Asperger’s
Totally wrong diagnosis.
… truth machine, you fortunately don’t post that often, and you are actually capable of arguing about a topic and mentioning evidence
I don’t need an ass like you to tell me that, either.
That would cut all interesting discussions off. It would also make posting corrections impossible.
Correct and ad hominem — of course it’s ad hominem, when you are the subject of that paragraph, duh.
It would be a good thing, if you wouldn’t post it 26 times in a row, as you did on that thread. I agreed with all your 26 attacks on Jim, but in spite of this, it made the thread much more tedious than it would have needed to be. Furthermore, most of what you said wasn’t even new: it had already been said, even though not in quite the same words. Your action was counterproductive.
Why don’t you gather your responses together into a single post? That would already help a lot. That’s why the comments are numbered: so you can scroll down and up again and find where you had interrupted reading.
What is that? Blackmail? Surely you aren’t trying to say you are physically incapable of posting fewer, longer, and less repetitive comments? Come on.
That would cut all interesting discussions off. It would also make posting corrections impossible.
Correct and ad hominem — of course it’s ad hominem, when you are the subject of that paragraph, duh.
It would be a good thing, if you wouldn’t post it 26 times in a row, as you did on that thread. I agreed with all your 26 attacks on Jim, but in spite of this, it made the thread much more tedious than it would have needed to be. Furthermore, most of what you said wasn’t even new: it had already been said, even though not in quite the same words. Your action was counterproductive.
Why don’t you gather your responses together into a single post? That would already help a lot. That’s why the comments are numbered: so you can scroll down and up again and find where you had interrupted reading.
What is that? Blackmail? Surely you aren’t trying to say you are physically incapable of posting fewer, longer, and less repetitive comments? Come on.
I rise in defense of Caledonian – every site needs a good contrarian, to keep the pendulum from swinging too far. And who can forget his great comment: “Those weren’t ad hominems. Those were insults, you fool.”
I think Evolutionary psychology offers some basic but interesting findings. One behaviour that follows the evolutionary model is that polygamy has been pretty widespread, polyandry has been pretty much limited to male relatives.
Official, simultaneous polyandry, you mean.
And who can forget his great comment: “Those weren’t ad hominems. Those were insults, you fool.”
That’s a real distinction to make and a funny way of making it. You understand that an ad hominem argument is more than just an insult, right? It almost sounds as if you’re implying otherwise.
“It is a mistake, but not merely a mistake. Making the mistake is highly correlated with certain political and social attitudes.” – Truth Machine
That may be the truth, machine – it may not. However, since we all know that correlation does not = causation it is not necessarily the case that any individual in here who holds those beliefs:
a) has certain political and social attitudes because of aforementioned belief OR
b) holds aforementioned belief because of certain political and social attitudes.
~6~
Well, wasn’t this a stimulating thread. (Socially, scientifically, and humoristically; a perfect trifecta.)
The socially first, before it’s too much like disturbing calming waters:
Christian, I hope you will be back as you make great comments, often in Molly-class.
I don’t think there is any justification for believing that is the case. But Caledonian and others with a similar strategy may underestimate the disagreement. If you don’t go for evoking interest by provocation, there is often only reason to call it as you see it.
Both John Smith and Jim in the same threads? My goodness!
To tack on an earlier comment, it is likely that some commenters that seem to behave somewhat as autists are so, but we can’t be certain. It is easier to discern such people in non-verbal social communication, but even then it is illusive.
In any case, provoking attitudes may be effective and interesting, but disruptive. I hope I’m not wakening the ghost of Watson by claiming that free speech shouldn’t be outright stopped, but neither should old curmudgeons enjoy a protected position in society. So love him or lose him. It’s up to PZ.
Well, wasn’t this a stimulating thread. (Socially, scientifically, and humoristically; a perfect trifecta.)
The socially first, before it’s too much like disturbing calming waters:
Christian, I hope you will be back as you make great comments, often in Molly-class.
I don’t think there is any justification for believing that is the case. But Caledonian and others with a similar strategy may underestimate the disagreement. If you don’t go for evoking interest by provocation, there is often only reason to call it as you see it.
Both John Smith and Jim in the same threads? My goodness!
To tack on an earlier comment, it is likely that some commenters that seem to behave somewhat as autists are so, but we can’t be certain. It is easier to discern such people in non-verbal social communication, but even then it is illusive.
In any case, provoking attitudes may be effective and interesting, but disruptive. I hope I’m not wakening the ghost of Watson by claiming that free speech shouldn’t be outright stopped, but neither should old curmudgeons enjoy a protected position in society. So love him or lose him. It’s up to PZ.
In truth, a perfect characterization of a troll.
In truth, a perfect characterization of a troll.
Colugo, thanks for the clarifying list. If EP is based in an empirical program, which focus on symbolic states, I can sympathize with that, as there is neuroscience evidence for the later in PFC’s.
I can somewhat understand the idea of the possibility of analyzing such cortical behavior, more or less separated from evolutionary ties to earlier neural traits. Since EP seems to be an old effort it certainly seems like there should be some positive results that makes people support it.
In any case it is not easy to grasp that aspect of a scientific program without a lot of effort. So far I have read some of Pinker, but he doesn’t seem to present any results at all, tested or not.
Wouldn’t that be susceptible to confirmation bias? Or do you refer to some sort of unbiased Turing test?
In any case the concept of “human nature” as opposed to say Colugo’s description of symbolic processing brains seems, as other’s commenters object, to smell of folk psychology models.
Colugo, thanks for the clarifying list. If EP is based in an empirical program, which focus on symbolic states, I can sympathize with that, as there is neuroscience evidence for the later in PFC’s.
I can somewhat understand the idea of the possibility of analyzing such cortical behavior, more or less separated from evolutionary ties to earlier neural traits. Since EP seems to be an old effort it certainly seems like there should be some positive results that makes people support it.
In any case it is not easy to grasp that aspect of a scientific program without a lot of effort. So far I have read some of Pinker, but he doesn’t seem to present any results at all, tested or not.
Wouldn’t that be susceptible to confirmation bias? Or do you refer to some sort of unbiased Turing test?
In any case the concept of “human nature” as opposed to say Colugo’s description of symbolic processing brains seems, as other’s commenters object, to smell of folk psychology models.
I hasten to add that this are old memories. But my impression was that there were no tested models in the presented material.
I hasten to add that this are old memories. But my impression was that there were no tested models in the presented material.
I’ve stayed out of this one because of my personal stance on the issue and because it is so easy to get dragged in to one of these discussions emotionally rather than cognitively.
Historically you don’t see a lot of evidence for “races” being inferior or superior to others. Africa and the Americas, which are often portrayed as “inferior” by racists, had their cultures that developed major architectural, cultural, and scientific accomplishments. You don’t see documentary evidence that race was considered an indicator of intellect, more so, you see gender being determinant. The idea that women were inferior, feeble minded, etc. The rise of racial ties to cognitive ability really doesn’t arise until the early 19th century after conquest, colonization, and slavery had been firmly established as “white” races conquering, colonizing, and enslaving “non-whites.” Generally this took the form of justifying the actions that had already taken place. Reginald Horsman referred to it as “Racial Manifest Destiny.”
IQ test evidence, etc., is truly weakened by SES status and development of countries. Studies have shown, over and over again, that the correlation between SES status, and generally the substandard quality of early schooling in lower income communities, have a dramatic impact upon the cognitive development of children. A major indicator, studies like Tennessee’s STAR have shown, is that classroom size in the formative years, K-3, have a dramatic impact upon student development. Higher SES parents have the leisure time and/or finances necessary to provide preschool children with their foundational development. Children of these parents generally are read to, spoken to in constructive ways, sent to day care, preschool, or otherwise have access to pre-kindergarten developmental opportunities that are not available to children in low SES households. These opportunities provide the children with their basic skills upon which IQ tests, etc., are reliant upon to gauge anything. If the child taking the test is a year, two years, three years behind in reading skills, the results of the test will be skewed towards them being less intelligent regardless of their actual cognitive ability.
Social preconceptions compounded by socio-economic disadvantages provide far more valid, evidentially supported, explanations for lower test scores than genetic variance.
Hmm.
I’d say ban Cal (and hell, while we’re at it can truth machine go too?), but since I stopped actually reading their posts I suppose it doesn’t matter all that much to me. I started ignoring Caledonian when I realized he was dead serious about insisting that scientists who are also theists aren’t “real” scientists. (Truth machine I now ignore just on principle because of the spam posting.)
That single point is so unbelievably retarded that I think it works as something like a universal acid against anything worthwhile he might say. Therefore I just skip his posts. I can get “right” and “entertaining” from reading other people’s posts, minus the stupid bullshit.
So when I start seeing his name every other post I now just skip the rest of the comments because it’s usually too tedious to sift through 264 posts of Caledonian’s asshattery and truth machine’s tedious spam. It’s like looking for diamonds in a dung heap.
(Oh and that little insult vs. ad hominem remark is about an unoriginal as they come. Everybody says that at least once. It’s like the ubiquitous “42” comment.)
At the risk of ending up embroiled in the various flames on this thread, could I just say that I personally have found Caledonian’s posts on the Watson threads quite interesting. Even if finally I disagree with him, I can honestly say that I have only arrived at that conclusion as a consequence of reading the responses to Cal’s posts. In other words, his posts have triggered some useful discussion, which would seem to be a contraindication of trollishness…
And could someone tell me if Truth Machine’s posts 97-99 were satire or not? I’ve had to unplug my irony-meter when reading Pharyngula due to numerous meltdowns.
I’d like to see an entire thread devoted to criticizing… me! It could be condensed to a single sentence (“She is of no consequence”) but it would make me feel important for a moment or two.
As irritating as he CAN be, I would miss Caledonian if he left or was banned. This is not to say that the many criticisms leveled at Cal are baseless.
As for the truth machine, I (of all people) wouldn’t presume to criticize a mere machine for being concise, but I have poked fun at its blog persona by taking its handle literally and at its mechanistic, one-to-one comment/reply posting style. This should not be construed as an insult.
I just don’t have much energy for offense or defense this week. :-|
Torbjorn.
In any case it is not easy to grasp that aspect of a scientific program without a lot of effort. So far I have read some of Pinker, but he doesn’t seem to present any results at all, tested or not.
You have got to be kidding. The Blank Slate contains hundreds of references to the primary EP literature that Pinker cites throughout the book. Ditto for How The Mind Works. You can also find extensive resources on the web. See the Center for Evolutionary Psychology, for example.
Wouldn’t that be susceptible to confirmation bias? Or do you refer to some sort of unbiased Turing test?
No, I mean the set of traits, physical or non-physical, by which we distinguish human beings from all other species. That’s “human nature” in its broadest sense. As used in evolutionary psychology, the term refers more specifically to psychological traits. See Pinker’s description that I quoted in #54.
In any case the concept of “human nature” as opposed to say Colugo’s description of symbolic processing brains seems, as other’s commenters object, to smell of folk psychology models.
“The smell of folk psychology.” Yet another criticism so vague and obtuse it’s hard to know what it’s supposed to mean. Do you deny that there’s a human nature, in the sense I described above, or in the sense described by Pinker? If so, why?
No, I mean the set of traits, physical or non-physical, by which we distinguish human beings from all other species. That’s “human nature” in its broadest sense.
This is what I meant by a trivial definition. I have problems even with this trivial definition of human nature, and this was the point I was trying to get at earlier, because it assumes that we can define what human is prior to talking about human nature. But, you seem to be saying that human nature is how we define what humans are, though correct me if I’m wrong. The way I see it, we have a set of ideas about what humans are or how to define human, and we then say that a certain nature holds as to those things within the set of things which fit our conception of human. This seems too circular of a method insofar as the theoretic framework is concerned.
Jason,
There’s no evidence for modularity. Don’t confuse modularity and localization; they’re two completely different things. Localization does not imply modularity. It’s not even obvious how the modularity thesis would translate into neurobiology (let alone the extreme Sperber/Pinker versions of “massive modularity”).
The evidence for computationalism was extremely weak last I checked. There are non-biologically-plausible models that achieve symbol processing in neutral networks but no evidence that it actually takes place. If you or anyone else have some citations to the contrary I’d be happy to see them.
EP is based on folk psychology; mental states, motivations, beliefs, etc. Now, it might be that folk psychology reduces to neurobiology, but, either way, it’s dangerous to use it as the basis for evolutionary speculation. Behaviour is a secondary characteristic of the brain. The evolution of the eye, or the heart, are far more straightforward. At least we’re discussing physiology directly. Even then, data from molecular biology and developmental biology have made us change our views of how many physical traits have evolved, showing that even physiology is often not enough to give a good evolutionary account. Most EP doesn’t even take the biology into account. If you have no idea how behaviour is generated, what constraints it’s under, what about it is and is not plastic, how the brain that generates it develops, etc, then you’re incredibly unlikely to produce good hypotheses.
I suggest this:
1. All comments shall be as Laconic as possible without risking misinterpretation.
2. All comments shall be written in point form.
3. All arguments shall be presented in the form:
a) Set of premises;
b) Method of deduction;
c) Conclusion supported by a) and b)
4. All comments shall eschew sarcasm, emotion, and any forms of humour whatsoever.
5. Commenters shall submit their comments to me for review before posting to ensure conformity with the above.
6. This list is not exhaustive and is subject to the addition or removal of conditions as I see fit.
With regards to certain commenters:
1) Christian Burnham shall neither be banned nor shall he voluntary remove himself from this blog. Five comments per day from him shall be considered sufficient to meet this criterion.
2) Caledonian shall not be banned, but shall be sentenced to a) three months in the Kalahari gathering mongongo nuts with the ǃKung, and b) four days of discussion about pet adoption policies in a focus group led by Ellen Degeneres.
3) Truth Machine shall be disassembled and the consituent components made into a really fast race car.
Commenters may vote for or against PZ’s adoption of these policies by marking one of the following circles with an HB pencil. Be sure your marks are heavy and black.
◯
◯
4. All comments shall eschew sarcasm, emotion, and any forms of humour whatsoever.
Yeah, that’ll be great.
Coathangrrr shall be banned.
Poke,
There’s no evidence for modularity. Don’t confuse modularity and localization; they’re two completely different things. Localization does not imply modularity.
There is overwhelming evidence for modularity, and modularity is obviously associated with localization. Different parts of the brain, with different physical characteristics, are responsible for different aspects of mind, including memory, perception, emotion, and reasoning.
The evidence for computationalism was extremely weak last I checked.
Well then you need to check again. The computational theory of mind is at the heart of all neuroscience. What alternative theory of mind do you consider superior? Searle’s “intentional properties” of biological material? Penrose’s “quantum consciousness” idea? Descartes’ immaterial soul?
EP is based on folk psychology; mental states, motivations, beliefs, etc.
No, EP is based on the principles described by Tooby and Cosmides. EP accounts of human psychology and behavior are overwhelmingly supported by diverse independent lines of evidence from evolution, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, zoology, genetics, and so on. What is it exactly that you are claiming? That human psychology has nothing to do with evolution? Or do you accept that evolution has shaped human psychology, and object only to particular EP hypotheses and theories? Or what?
coathanger,
This is what I meant by a trivial definition.
What’s “trivial” about it? And I’m still waiting for you to describe the way in which you think “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” does not correspond to the real world. The “set of animals” we call “human beings” does not “correspond to the real world?” Really?
I have problems even with this trivial definition of human nature, and this was the point I was trying to get at earlier, because it assumes that we can define what human is prior to talking about human nature.
Huh? How does it assume that? You’re still not making any sense.
<
poke,
If you have no idea how behaviour is generated, what constraints it’s under, what about it is and is not plastic, how the brain that generates it develops, etc, then you’re incredibly unlikely to produce good hypotheses.
Huh? Obviously, we do have an idea how the behavior is generated–by the physical properties and processes in the brain. The brain is a biological organ, and is thus subject to change over time through mutation and natural selection just like any other biological organ.
If all you’re saying is that we cannot yet provide a highly detailed neurobiological account of how mutation X produces brain feature Y produces behavior Z, so what? No such neurobiological explanation is necessary to support EP accounts of psychological traits, and more than we need a similarly detailed biological explanation to support an evolutionary account of the existence of physical traits like eyes or wings.
Jason,
It doesn’t follow from localization that functions are encapsulated in domain-specific modules that evolution could act on independently.
I don’t see why you need a theory of mind. Personally I’m an eliminative materialist. But even if I weren’t, I’d object to the notion that “the computational theory of mind is at the heart of all neuroscience.” Most neuroscientists are perfectly happy talking about neurons and synapses and such without bringing a “theory of mind” into it.
I think the brain has evolved. But I’m sceptical that the categories of psychology describe the actions/functions of the brain. There’s obviously “human nature” in the sense that there are neurophysiological differences between humans and other animals and I would agree that they are the product of evolution. The question is whether they have any direct and explicable connection with higher-level behaviours that would lend speculative accounts of the evolution of such behaviours credibility.
Brownian, my pencil broke so I used the punch method instead and now there’s something wrong with my screen.
Everybody, use magic markers instead. They’re not so pointy. : )
What’s “trivial” about it? And I’m still waiting for you to describe the way in which you think “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” does not correspond to the real world. The “set of animals” we call “human beings” does not “correspond to the real world?” Really?
It is a trivial statement because it says that we can define human being as those who possess human nature, and where do we get our conception of human nature? Not from some unbiased, objective eye in the sky, from our idea of what humans are. The question “You mean apart from, say, the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species?” shows that you think that our conception of what is human plays into what human is, because our ability to distinguish humans from other species should have no bearing on what it means to be human unless humanness is based on our conception of humanness.
I think I’m doing a pretty poor job of communicating my point in this thread so far, so let me restate it. The problem I have with the study of evo-psych is that it assumes that we can take the group of organisms that we define as human and tell us something about the behavior of said organisms using terms that are established based on their genetics. The reason that I think this is a problem is because a large part of how we define organisms as human is based on behavior. We look at a behavior, for example being able to speak, and say that something which possesses this behavior is human. Then we look at the genetics(or DNA or physiology) of said organism and say that other organisms possessing similar genetics are also human. Then evo-psych comes along and says it is going to look at behaviors as being genetically based. This is the circularity I am referring to.
I would love to vote but which one is in favour and which one is against the motion?
coathanger,
It is a trivial statement because it says that we can define human being as those who possess human nature, and where do we get our conception of human nature?
No it doesn’t “say” anything about how we can define human being. It defines human nature as, more or less, the set of characteristics that distinguish human beings.
And for the third time I ask, please describe the way in which you think “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” does not correspond to the real world. This statement is so bizarre and seems to me so obviously false that it is simply absurd.
The problem I have with the study of evo-psych is that it assumes that we can take the group of organisms that we define as human and tell us something about the behavior of said organisms using terms that are established based on their genetics. The reason that I think this is a problem is because a large part of how we define organisms as human is based on behavior. We look at a behavior, for example being able to speak, and say that something which possesses this behavior is human. Then we look at the genetics(or DNA or physiology) of said organism and say that other organisms possessing similar genetics are also human. Then evo-psych comes along and says it is going to look at behaviors as being genetically based. This is the circularity I am referring to.
Another argument I find completely incomprehensible. Yes, we define “human beings” (and all other species) in terms of their genes, physiology and behavior. Yes, we believe that the behavior of human beings (and all other species) is determined in part by their genes. How does this make evolutionary psychology “circular?” A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is used to justify the premise. Could you explain, as clearly and concisely as you can, the nature of the circularity you see?
And how is this different from any other animal, let’s say a dog? We define dogs partly based on behaviour, and therefore it’s circular to study dog behavioural genetics?
Don Quijote shall be banned.
Kseniya shall be of consequence.
[Man, this is fun. I’d be religious if it were less about worshipping a god and more about being a god.]
And for the third time I ask, please describe the way in which you think “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” does not correspond to the real world. This statement is so bizarre and seems to me so obviously false that it is simply absurd.
The reason I say that is because our conception of human being does not correspond to a discrete group of organism that share some set of properties. Yes, there is a set of real organisms which we denote as human, but the only reason we can say they are human is because we denote them as such. The evidence of this is in the outliers. If we say that one of the properties of being human is the innate ability to develop language, then evo-psych should show that there is a genetic basis for the ability to develop language. However, if there were an organism which in every way other than the ability to develop language appeared as human then I think the majority would consider that organism human. What this means is that our conception of what is human is not a strict definition of properties possessed but a fluid definition of what we consider human.
Yes, we define “human beings” (and all other species) in terms of their genes, physiology and behavior.
No, we define human being by genes or physiology or behavior. “Or”, not “And”.
I don’t know if this is any more clear, but I hope so. I would prefer you to simply disagree with me than to not be able to explain my point.
poke,
I think the brain has evolved. But I’m sceptical that the categories of psychology describe the actions/functions of the brain.
What alternative possibilities do you consider plausible? If “categories of psychology” (memory, reason, emotion, perception, etc.) do not arise from “actions/functions” of the physical brain, where do you think they come from? Immaterial souls?
There’s obviously “human nature” in the sense that there are neurophysiological differences between humans and other animals and I would agree that they are the product of evolution. The question is whether they have any direct and explicable connection with higher-level behaviours that would lend speculative accounts of the evolution of such behaviours credibility.
Well, again I ask, what do you think produces “higher-level behaviors” if not the neurophysiological characteristics of the brain, which you say are the product of evolution? Or, rather, other than the interaction of those neurophysiological characteristics and our environment?
And how is this different from any other animal, let’s say a dog? We define dogs partly based on behaviour, and therefore it’s circular to study dog behavioural genetics?
It isn’t significantly different from any other animal. But I’m not saying the study of behavior is circular, I’m saying the definition is circular.
coathanger,
The reason I say that is because our conception of human being does not correspond to a discrete group of organism that share some set of properties.
Of course it does. “Our conception of human being” corresponds to the discrete group of organisms that possess a human genome, human physiology, or human behavior. That’s how we place, say, you in the group “human beings” and, say, a zebra in the group “zebras.”
The evidence of this is in the outliers. If we say that one of the properties of being human is the innate ability to develop language, then evo-psych should show that there is a genetic basis for the ability to develop language. However, if there were an organism which in every way other than the ability to develop language appeared as human then I think the majority would consider that organism human.
Probably, yes. So what? If the organism in every other way appeared as human (human genome, human physiology, human behavior), then its inability to develop language would simply represent a neurological abnormality of some kind in that particular individual.
I’m going to have to put Brownian in charge of comment decorum and banning.
Send me your email address so I can reroute all Pharyngula comment notifications to come straight to your mailbox.
Brownian shall get mail
Whenever a commenter is snuffed out, I think of this speech from Henry IV:
FALSTAFF
But to say I know more harm in him than in myself, were to say more than I know. That he is old, the more the pity, his white hairs do witness it; but that he is, saving your reverence, a whoremaster, that I utterly deny. If sack and sugar be a fault, God help the wicked! if to be old and merry be a sin, then many an old host that I know is damned: if to be fat be to be hated, then Pharaoh’s lean kine are to be loved. No, my good lord; banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry’s company, banish not him thy Harry’s company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.
PRINCE HENRY
I do, I will.
poke,
It doesn’t follow from localization that functions are encapsulated in domain-specific modules that evolution could act on independently.
I didn’t say it did. But what reason is there to think that evolution cannot act independently on “functions” (by which I assume you mean “psychological traits”) just as it can act independently on physical traits like organs and limbs and cells? Obviously, the evolution of any trait is not completely independent of all other traits because there are various dependencies and relationships between traits, but I don’t understand why you think this interdependence somehow calls into question the evolution of pyschological traits but not physical ones.
I’m with Brownian on this one. I would also like to request to get any spare parts left over (I want to make a toaster oven) and a basket of fruit from the !Kung tribe.
Of course it does. “Our conception of human being” corresponds to the discrete group of organisms that possess a human genome, human physiology, or human behavior. That’s how we place, say, you in the group “human beings” and, say, a zebra in the group “zebras.”
What then is human behavior? The behavior of an organism that possesses a human genome or a human physiology? And if an organism that possesses neither a human genome nor human physiology possesses human behavior is that organism human? And vice versa.
Human behavior sounds suspiciously like human nature.
coathanger,
What then is human behavior? The behavior of an organism that possesses a human genome or a human physiology?
Yes. Of course, it wouldn’t possess a human physiology if it didn’t also possess a human genome.
And if an organism that possesses neither a human genome nor human physiology possesses human behavior is that organism human?
The organism probably wouldn’t “possess” human behavior if it didn’t possess a human genome and physiology. I suppose it might be theoretically possible to create a robot or “android” whose behavior was indistinguishable from that of a human being but that lacked a human genome (or any genome), and I suppose we might want to call such an object “human” in terms of its behavior, but that really has nothing do with with the idea of “human nature” in the sense that evolutionary psychologists are using the term.
Is this going somewhere? As far as I can tell, your original intent was to critique the claim that there is such a thing as “human nature,” that the concept is scientifically meaningful and useful, and to critique the field of evolutionary psychology, but it’s hard to extract any clear argument against either of them from your rambling posts.
Can we rebuild Truth Machine as a robot with a talent for making wry comments about bad sci-fi movies?
Kseniya, you may be onto something. We could make a fortune in royalties alone! I just hope no one has thought of it before…
Or Ttruth Machine! The extra “t” is for…toast!
…oh god that sucked. I’m sorry.
And now, the Mr. Belvedere Fun Kit!
(because seriously, this was supposed to be a humor thread before Caledonian hijacked it)
Wow…it’s like a bunch of adult male hairless apes with PMS here tonight…. I’ll just smile and nod my head while slowly backing out of the blog….
Jason,
Because organs and limbs and cells physically exist and are, to some degree, independently specified in the genome. Psychological traits, on the other hand, are abstractions and their physical realization is considerably different in terms of physiology, development and genetics – i.e., the lines of demarcation in the brain are different than those in our psychological theories.
#5: “Time to burn Pinker books?” Not the ones on language, but yes, you can go ahead and burn the rest — for pretty much the reasons given on the VERY FUNNY site that PZ pointed us towards. Somehow this thread got a lot less funny in a hurry, owing largely to the heavy hand of Mr Caledonian.
TM @#103: Correction noted, and yeah. We have whole blogs devoted to counterexamples, right here at SB.
Poke @#153: Perhaps you should reread some of PZ’s (inter alia) discussions of emergent phenomena in development, starting with segmentation….
One of the funky things about evolution, is that it’s really good at ignoring implementation details. Of course, “readability” is not a selection factor! If we want to try and figure out how something gets done, that’s our problem — and it can be a helluva problem, because the causal networks are often (usually) vastly complex, and broadly dispersed throughout the organism (and beyond).
Neuromodulation by bloodflow? Hormone secretion by bone cells? Developmental feedback loops that include the external environment? All in a year’s work, or an eon’s….
-truth machine
*dives into bunker as irony meter explodes with the force of a small nuclear bomb*
Now then. I suspect what happened here was an innocent mistake on the part of the David Marjanović; namely, the charitable assumption that if you were actually aware of how the tone of your posts is perceived by nearly anyone you probably wouldn’t make them. In other words, assuming ignorance rather than malice, carelessness rather than callousness, etc.
Incidentally, your posts really are far too acidic to be easily digestible, but other than that, the “small chunks” bit is spot-on. I know I for one find it irritating that you respond in a machine-gun-like flurry of small posts, making an individual comment for almost literally every thought that occurs to you or every point you want to make about previous comments, rather than collecting them into a single post like most other people. It’s like you’ve somehow shuffled blog comments into the same conceptual category as cell-phone text messages. And since you obviously expect anyone responding to you to have read ALL your comments before making that response, even if you spat out another volley of them while the responder was typing their comprehensive post, this is annoying as hell, especially when coupled to your tone which is very much that of “some condescending ass.” Why do you do this? What does it gain you?
An example has already been given: earlier claims that non-white races in general and blacks in particular are not “human.” Similarly, consider the ridiculous lines drawn by Creationists who try to divide the entire mass of hominid fossils we possess into two groups, “ape” and “human” and who draw the line between “apes” and “humans” in different places. Consider also the earlier attempts to classify humans in a separate (gah, was it family, or order) rather than as primates or apes, which Darwin argued against by observing, in almost these words, that “if man had not been his own classifier this idea would never have occurred.” I don’t think there’s any rational dispute that it is possible to define supposed biological categories, especially those with as much of an emotional charge as “human”, in a fashion which is based entirely on prejudices and has little if any relationship to any biological reality. This is a legitimate concern.
Second, you never answered MY question. Let me add another one: Do you actually assert that it is unreasonable to regard as suspicious alleged research findings that are not only of a sort that would be expected to be especially subject to observer and/or experimenter bias but which are actually claimed to confirm popular prejudices and are advanced by people with obvious potential ulterior motives?
“BTW, Marjanović, in case you hadn’t noticed, criticizing my posting style doesn’t stop it, but rather tends to breed more. So if you want to be effective, it’s better to keep your yap shut.”
What is that? Blackmail?
No, moron, it’s advice as to how to better achieve your aims. And if you look at this thread, you’ll see that your jackassery produced a lot of off-topic commentary from others as well — predictably.
Surely you aren’t trying to say you are physically incapable of posting fewer, longer, and less repetitive comments? Come on.
Listen, you self-centered twit, unlike you, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the way I post, so I’m not going to change it just because you don’t like it. But you and condescending jackasses like you think that, if you just tell people that you disapprove of their behavior, they’ll go “oh, ok, I’ll stop then”, as if they had no independent judgment of their own, or valued yours.
“criticizing my posting style doesn’t stop it, but rather tends to breed more. ”
In truth, a perfect characterization of a troll.
I expect better of you, Torbjörn. If someone tells you “Shut up, fool!”, will that shut you up, or will it produce more output from you? Simply pointing out the latter has nothing to do with trolling. Someone telling you to shut up is acting against their own interests, under the self-centered, false, assumption that telling people how to behave will cause them to behave that way. The same goes for any sort of condescending lecture about posting style.
In other words, “Dear Kettle: you’re black”?
Truth machine I now ignore just on principle because of the spam posting.
Apparently you have no idea what the word “spam” means — I have never written any sort of spam. My posts are always responses to either the original post or to other responses.
I have poked fun at its blog persona by taking its handle literally and at its mechanistic, one-to-one comment/reply posting style.
I have no idea why you think that responding to only one post in each of my comments is particularly “mechanistic”. And it’s not one-to-one; I sometimes post multiple responses, to different points in a given post. Sometimes I read the thread top to bottom, sometimes bottom to top, sometimes I skip around quite a bit — not particularly “mechanistic” in the common parlance (which rests on obsolete conceptions of mechanism).
I don’t see why you need a theory of mind. Personally I’m an eliminative materialist.
What does being an eliminative materialist have to do with it? We still need theories of evolution, disease, etc. even though they — like the mind — are material processes. Note that Daniel Dennett, quite the eliminative materialist, does not eschew theories of mind. If the mind is what the brain does, then a theory of mind is an explanatory framework for the activities of the brain.
The organism probably wouldn’t “possess” human behavior if it didn’t possess a human genome and physiology. I suppose it might be theoretically possible to create a robot or “android” whose behavior was indistinguishable from that of a human being but that lacked a human genome (or any genome), and I suppose we might want to call such an object “human” in terms of its behavior, but that really has nothing do with with the idea of “human nature” in the sense that evolutionary psychologists are using the term.
This is simply the notion of Strong AI and substrate independence — a consequence of the computational model that you (rightly) uphold. It seems very odd to claim that the functions of human cognition have nothing to do with the idea of “human nature”.
Jason:
I’m not kidding. I believe I started to read a web text during a thread discussion. Of course he referenced literature. But I couldn’t see him stating that there was any predictive theory in this.
(Obviously it is up to me to read these hundreds of references to find out if there is any real substance in this as of yet. But you would also think he would triumphantly proclaim any successes of EP models.)
Doesn’t tell me much. AFAIK we can separate more or all species on their traits.
Of course, I was assuming that we were trying to identify something uniquely and recognizably human. Maybe I was wrong, and it is only a trivial trait description contrasting “rat nature” et cetera?
Not if we aren’t discussing something that is uniquely human, see above. But if we are, that is the folk psychology usage. And I have a hard time to understand why such an assumption of uniqueness isn’t a clear problem.
Jason:
I’m not kidding. I believe I started to read a web text during a thread discussion. Of course he referenced literature. But I couldn’t see him stating that there was any predictive theory in this.
(Obviously it is up to me to read these hundreds of references to find out if there is any real substance in this as of yet. But you would also think he would triumphantly proclaim any successes of EP models.)
Doesn’t tell me much. AFAIK we can separate more or all species on their traits.
Of course, I was assuming that we were trying to identify something uniquely and recognizably human. Maybe I was wrong, and it is only a trivial trait description contrasting “rat nature” et cetera?
Not if we aren’t discussing something that is uniquely human, see above. But if we are, that is the folk psychology usage. And I have a hard time to understand why such an assumption of uniqueness isn’t a clear problem.
because seriously, this was supposed to be a humor thread before Caledonian hijacked it
Hey, someone remembered! But, seriously, it was “pre-hijacked” because PZ made a serious point in posting a parody the serious dispute that preceded this thread.
-truth machine
*dives into bunker as irony meter explodes with the force of a small nuclear bomb*
Ah yes, Azkyroth, another condescending ass whose post, in typical fashion, is pure condescending crap. As for irony, there was none, as I don’t blather on about how people should post or what I find annoying, or inquire as to what motivates people like Azkyroth to waste their time with such non-substantive crap.
“Someone telling you to shut up is acting against their own interests, under the self-centered, false, assumption that telling people how to behave will cause them to behave that way.”
In other words, “Dear Kettle: you’re black”?
No, moron, that tu quoque is neither “other words” nor accurate — I make no such foolish assumption, so I don’t bother to tell you not to be an idiot, because I know you will continue to be one in any case.
truth machine:
And I expected better of you, considering your tag. I took care to make a truthful observation and no more. The conclusions you draw are all yours.
truth machine:
And I expected better of you, considering your tag. I took care to make a truthful observation and no more. The conclusions you draw are all yours.
TM @#103: Correction noted, and yeah. We have whole blogs devoted to counterexamples, right here at SB.
You’re welcome, David, and I offer my appreciation for your being an adult among so many juveniles.
And I expected better of you, considering your tag. I took care to make a truthful observation and no more.
I see you offer no rebuttal to my reasoned argument against your mere assertion. Again, I’m disappointed, but I do know you can do better, and have always appreciated your thoughtful contributions, and will look forward to doing so again.
poke,
The brain also physically exists and “is, to some degree, independently specified in the genome.” I’m still not clear on what psychological traits you doubt could be produced by evolution, and why you doubt it. Do you doubt that evolution could produce the ability to perceive color? Or the urge to have sex? Or the urge of parents to protect their children? The psychology of sex, reproduction, and parenting are of course central concerns of evolutionary psychology. I don’t understand why you are skeptical that evolution could produce, say, a greater desire for sexual promiscuity in males than in females if you agree that evolution could produce the desire to have sex in the first place.
I took care to make a truthful observation and no more.
I will just point out that responding to criticisms of one’s style is not, truthfully, a characterization of a troll.
You know, for someone who’s as fond of hurling around the phrase “ad hominem”…
Azky,
An example has already been given: earlier claims that non-white races in general and blacks in particular are not “human.”
Huh? How is “earlier claims that non-white races in general and blacks in particular are not ‘human'” an “example” of “the way in which …’the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans’ does not correspond to the real world?” Like coathanger, you just seem thoroughly confused.
Let me add another one: Do you actually assert that it is unreasonable to regard as suspicious alleged research findings that are not only of a sort that would be expected to be especially subject to observer and/or experimenter bias but which are actually claimed to confirm popular prejudices and are advanced by people with obvious potential ulterior motives?
What “alleged research findings” are you referring to? What “bias?” What “popular prejudices?” It’s kind of hard for me to respond when your question is so vague and abstract. I would not agree, for instance, that it is reasonable for you to regard the “research finding” (not “alleged research finding”) that there are significant differences in the evolved psychologies of men and women as “suspicious,” since there is overwhelming evidence of such differences.
But then, this latest post of yours suggests once more that you have no real interest in the evidence, no interest in actually learning anything about the field of which you are so “suspicious,” but instead just want to keep repeating your speculations about “bias” and “prejudice” and “self-serving” motives.
TM:
That fact that you have no idea is why it bemuses me. A system can’t explain itself…
You may not realize that I have no particular like or dislike of that aspect of your posting style. But it (obviously) stands out; people comment on it. I see it as consistent with your overall style.
I may be neutral about your posting style, but I will defend,
to the death,until “American Idol” comes on, your right to utilize it.I invite you to take comments of this nature somewhat little less than fully literally. You are free to accept or refuse that invitation. Spokoynoy nochi.
I have no idea why you think that responding to only one post in each of my comments is particularly “mechanistic”.
That fact that you have no idea is why it bemuses me. A system can’t explain itself…
a) I don’t think that word means what you think it means. (Look it up).
b) I was talking about why you think something — you are not myself. And a formal consistent axiomatic system (of a certain strength) can’t prove itself consistent, but that’s of no relevance here (especially since, like all humans [which are themselves subject to Godel’s theorems, contrary to Penrose], I’m not consistent).
c) I have no idea why you think it because, as I explained, it doesn’t seem reasonable, and you’ve offered no explanation. I find your response pompous and silly, but I think it’s more sad than amusing.
I invite you to take comments of this nature somewhat little less than fully literally.
The “invitation” is rather silly since I obviously don’t take them “fully literally”. If anyone is acting “mechanistically”, it’s those bozos who are playing this one track record over and over, without insight or comprehension.
You know, for someone who’s as fond of hurling around the phrase “ad hominem”…
Typical hypocrisy from Azkyroth — no refutation of what I wrote in sight, only more claims about me personally.
Huh? How is “earlier claims that non-white races in general and blacks in particular are not ‘human'” an “example” of “the way in which …’the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans’ does not correspond to the real world?” Like coathanger, you just seem thoroughly confused.
It seems rather obviously because blacks are, in the real world, human, despite their being conceptualized by some as not being so. And really, you should stop with the “you just seem thoroughly confused” arrogance, when it may be (and seems to be) that you are having a lot of trouble grasping some of the points being made — even if they are sometimes mistaken or, as coathangrrr (sic) acknowledged, poorly communicated.
There are indeed recorded psychological differences between men and women. My issue is with jumping to the conclusions that A) these are genetically determined and immutable (and conflating those) and B) from there to the conclusion that there’s nothing wrong with gender discrimination as it exists in our society. Had you read any of my posts, you would know this.
Any chance you’ll present some evidence defending your position, rather than trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who vocally aren’t convinced?
Didn’t think so.
If you cannot differentiate criticism of your obnoxious behavior in this and similar threads from “claims about you personally,” there’s really no point in continuing this discussion.
You really don’t see how an example of people developing a conception of “human” which is derived from racial prejudices rather than biological realities is not an example of a case in which “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not correspond to the real world?”
I…….really don’t know what to say to that.
“I mean the set of traits, physical or non-physical, by which we distinguish human beings from all other species.”
Damn, and here all these years I believed in human nature and thought it included things like the need to eat, and self interested behavior. Traits we share with other species.
You going to correct your nonsense?
“Is an example of”, gah.
I’m trying to wrap my mind around how someone could even use the phrase “”I mean the set of traits, physical or non-physical, by which we distinguish human beings from all other species.” to come up with a set of traits that would be considered human nature? What do you do for traits that we share with some but not all other species like caring for ones young. Is it no longer human nature to care for ones young because some spider does?
Seems a weird definition also because as we discover new species then human nature changes. What if we discover a species of ape that can understand grammar? Do our e languagskills suddenly drop out of the category of human nature. If you have a problem with imagining such undiscovered apes then imagine extraterrestrials with such skills.
That doesn’t seem right. The morphing of human nature based on what other species do or do not possess. It also runs against the entire point of positing a “human nature”.
To help clarify the (substantive) discussion, this is from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
[Wow, I had to fake the software out to get “incest” through.]
there’s really no point in continuing this discussion
I’m glad to hear that you will now desist from your idiotic off-topic and ad hominem comments.
You really don’t see how an example of people developing a conception of “human” which is derived from racial prejudices rather than biological realities is not an example of a case in which “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not correspond to the real world?”
I…….really don’t know what to say to that.
Nice to see that we agree on this substantive point.
It also runs against the entire point of positing a “human nature”.
It doesn’t make sense to “posit” such a thing, it only makes sense to define it — to say what we mean by the term. Clearly, Jason’s definition is very poor because it doesn’t correspond to our normal meaning of the word “nature”, which is not comparative. As Fermi said: “That’s not right. That’s not even wrong.”
Cultural phenomena, rituals etc. are products, not part of human nature. Artworks, for example are not part of human nature, but our appreciation of art is.
If cultural phenomena are not part of human nature but appreciation of art is, why does that vary so much among humans? Why is it “an acquired taste”? There do seem to be physiological elements that play a role in aesthetic judgments (for instance, people find symmetric faces more attractive), but “appreciation of art” surely has strong cultural components when art is a cultural phenomenon and the very identification of what counts as art is culturally specific.
(However, I’m not clear on whether this claim about appreciation of art comes from Wilson or from some Wikipedia editor.)
Truth Machine: One again, you have completely outwitted me.
Possessing ‘art’ – that is, decorative elements that serve no functional purpose – does seem to be pretty universal for humans, even if the traditions about what specific elements, styles, and techniques vary.
Similarly, ritualism seems to be part of human nature, as does superstition, because they’re universal* across cultures, even when the specific rituals and superstitions are culturally and socially acquired.
Truth Machine: One again, you have completely outwitted me.
What a surprise.
So you understand all the different meanings of posit and have come to the conclusion that my usage makes no sense? Try definition 2 from the American Heritage Dictionary.
I’m with Popper on the usefulness of approaching understanding via precise definitions. They are unattainable. I treat words as labels for things and concepts. Definitions serve a purpose but they are not primary.
We posit the concept of human nature in order to understand certain things about the world, like for instance why Marxism won’t work. We need only define it enough so that we get a general feel for what counts as human nature, and can communicate. That’s secondary however.
Certainly appreciation for the literary style of Ayn Rand doesn’t count as human nature. Certainly the need to eat does. I’m sure there are human attributes that would be hard to assign. Is the need for religion part of human nature? I don’t think so, but perhaps I’m wrong. Have fun trying to come up with a precise definition of human nature that everyone is going to agree with. Apparently we can’t even agree on what posit means.
Azkyroth,
There are indeed recorded psychological differences between men and women. My issue is with jumping to the conclusions that A) these are genetically determined and immutable
I said “evolved” psychological differences, not “recorded” psychological differences. I’m not sure why you think evolved psychological differences are not genetically determined. They may in some sense and to some degree be “mutable,” but not in the sense that a learned behavior is.
(and conflating those) and B) from there to the conclusion that there’s nothing wrong with gender discrimination as it exists in our society.
I haven’t seen anyone suggest that there is nothing wrong with gender discrimination, if by that you mean invidious social discrimination. Gender differences, including differences in the representation of men and women in different occupations, positions of power and authority, and socioeconomic status, are not the same thing as gender discrimination.
Any chance you’ll present some evidence defending your position,
Evidence regarding what? You haven’t offered any serious empirical argument against “my position,” just endless repetitions of your vague accusations of “bias,” prejudice” and “self-serving” motives against unnamed evolutionary psychologists and unidentified “research findings.”
Azky,
You really don’t see how an example of people developing a conception of “human” which is derived from racial prejudices rather than biological realities is not an example of a case in which “the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not correspond to the real world?”
No, I don’t. Perhaps you could explain why you think the former is an example of the latter. Are you seriously under the impression that white human beings (or whatever other “set of animals” you’re referring to here) do not exist in the real world?
You’re confusing the fact that certain historical usages of the term “human” were not consistent with the criteria we now use for species classifications with the claim that a “set of animals” that obviously does exist in “the real world” does not exist in the real world. This kind of confusion is pervasive in your posts.
Brian Macker,
What do you do for traits that we share with some but not all other species like caring for ones young.
What do you mean “what do I do for” them? Those are human traits, but not uniquely human ones. They are part of human nature, and also part of the nature of other species.
You’re confusing the fact that certain historical usages of the term “human” were not consistent with the criteria we now use for species classifications with the claim that a “set of animals” that obviously does exist in “the real world” does not exist in the real world. This kind of confusion is pervasive in your posts.
No a “set of animals” does not exist in the real world, the individual animals do, but the set itself does not. Are you really so dense as to confuse a set and members of the the set as being the same thing? No one is saying that there are no humans, the point is that we can’t talk about humans nature without a definition of human that is both non-arbitrary and inclusive.
coathanger,
No a “set of animals” does not exist in the real world, the individual animals do,
Brilliant. Then NO “set of animals that we include in our conception of humans” (your phrase) exists in “the real world” regardless of what that conception is or what individual animals it encompasses.
No one is saying that there are no humans, the point is that we can’t talk about humans nature without a definition of human that is both non-arbitrary and inclusive.
We DO have a definition of human that is “non-arbitrary” and “inclusive” (although you don’t say what, exactly, you think it needs to “include.”)
Whatever point you think you were making when you began this silly exercise in word games, you now seem to have completely lost it. You previously seemed to be arguing against the idea that human nature is a scientifically meaningful or useful concept at all. Is that still your position? Or do you now agree that the concept is meaningful and useful?
[Slowly-patiently-explaining-things-to-bratty-toddler-voice]If the points at which the boundary lines of a set are drawn do not correspond to biologically meaningful divisions, then the set does not correspond to a biologically meaningful category.[/Slowly-patiently-explaining-things-to-bratty-toddler-voice]
I don’t have time now, but would someone please explain to Jason the difference between arguing that a given conceptual category does not exist, and arguing that person x’s idea of that category’s contents is wrong?
Also, would someone please refresh him on the concept of “burden of proof?”
That is all.
No, “individual animals” are another example of a set drawn things that are more real. Everything is composed of sets of properties, and we recognize certain associations of properties as being useful for categorization. That is all.
No, “individual animals” are another example of a set drawn things that are more real.
What preposition is missing here?
Azkyroth,
[Slowly-patiently-explaining-things-to-bratty-toddler-voice]If the points at which the boundary lines of a set are drawn do not correspond to biologically meaningful divisions, then the set does not correspond to a biologically meaningful category.[/Slowly-patiently-explaining-things-to-bratty-toddler-voice]
[Slowly-patiently-explaining-things-to-ignorant-fool]
Whether the set corresponds to a “biologically meaningful category” is utterly irrelevant to the claim that is in dispute. The members of the set EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD whether the set includes all human beings or only some of them.
I’m still waiting for you to name the evolutionary psychologists you are accusing of “bias,” “prejudice” and “self-serving” motives, to identify their “research findings” that you consider to be expressions of these nefarious motives rather than legitimate scientific work, and to present your evidence in support of these assertions.
[/Slowly-patiently-explaining-things-to-ignorant-fool]
Jason, would you accept J. Phillippe Rushton, psychologist at University of Western Ontario, whose work on the correlation of race with various characteristics (including intelligence and penis size) is often cited in this area? He often speaks at white supremacist conferences, and is the current president of the Pioneer Fund, a granting foundation that funds eugenics research (among other projects).
Jason, would you accept J. Phillippe Rushton, psychologist at University of Western Ontario, whose work on the correlation of race with various characteristics (including intelligence and penis size) is often cited in this area?
The question doesn’t make sense. Would I accept what about Rushton? I haven’t really looked into his controversial claims about race and intelligence. I don’t think his work is “often” cited in EP literature, but his name does seem to be cited quite often by people who seek to discredit the field. Racial differences aren’t a major concern of evolutionary psychology.
Jason, I was responding to this:
I think Rushton fits the bill precisely.
Tulse,
As I said, racial differences are not a major concern of evolutionary psychology. I’m not aware of even a single researcher in the field whose work focuses on racial differences. But to repeat what I said in another thread about the general topic of race and intelligence, the hypothesis that reproductively-isolated human subpopulations have evolved significant differences in cognitive abilities is not obviously false. The hypothesis is clearly a sensitive one given the history of racial oppression, but that’s not a reason to dismiss it out of hand or fail to investigate it.
Perhaps this article, which compares behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, and dual inheritance theory, will be helpful to the discussion.
Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral
Ecology at Twenty-Five. Winterhalder and Smith
http://www.hbes.com/HBES/evolanth.pdf
Let me add this to the list I made above:
behavioral ecology + Jensenism -> modern scientific racism
Anyone familiar with evolutionary psychology knows that Tooby and Cosmides, among others, have big problems with Rushton’s ideas.
There are a number of often squabbling tribes within the human behavior and evolution community, representing a variety of theoretical paradigms as well as political and social agendas. One thing they have in common is building on the theoretical foundation of 60s-70s behavioral ecology. (Even modern multilevel adaptation theorists like DS Wilson and Nowak work from this foundation, even if they have disagreements with some of the earlier conclusions.) Evolutionary psychology (in the original sense – EEA, domain-specific modules, human universality etc.) is just one of several schools of thought, but often all of them are often popularly referred to as “evolutionary psychology.”
behavioral ecology + feminism -> Darwinian feminism
http://www2.bc.edu/~richarad/lcb/fea/scmla.html
http://biosci.ucdavis.edu/alumni/newsletter/spring98/feminism.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/mar/feathrdy/
Here is the Center for Evolutionary Psychology’s list of research topics. I wouldn’t claim it’s exhaustive or authoritative, but it provides a pretty good indication of the kind of work most scientists working in the field are doing. As you can see, the only mention of race at all concerns perceptions of race in the study of coalitional psychology.
People who bring up Rushton to try and discredit evolutionary psychology are engaging in the same kind of guilt-by-association smear tactics as people who bring up proponents of social darwinism to try and discredit evolution as a whole.
I see. So this entire extended debate has been entirely due to you insisting on a blockheadedly literalistic interpretation of the phrase “exists in the real world” by…whose original statement was it again?
And the fact that the entities shuffled into a proposed conceptual category individually exist is completely irrelevant to whether the conceptual category, as a thing in itself, corresponds well enough to any actual real-world divisions that it can be said to “exist” in a meaningful, if somewhat abstract, sense.
Keep waiting, then. I’ve voiced concerns based on biased and fraudulent research of the past, which I’ve brought up examples to support in other threads in which you were involved and which constitute a wheel I don’t have time for, and you aren’t worth, reinventing. Others have cited their own examples and, as with the thing about Rushton, you’ve blown them off with no consideration. You’ve demanded that I explain in excruciating microscopic detail what exactly why I’m concerned instead of supporting your position. I’m not going to spoon-feed this to you. So far you’ve given me the strong impression that your conclousion about gender differences is driven by “I really, really want this to be true” and not only have you done nothing to correct it, but your obfuscation on this point looks, walks, and quacks like a tacit acknowledgement.
(Note to the idiotically literal: the above should not be taken as a claim that your obfuscation literally is visible, ambulatory, or prone to quacking noises.)
So, Jason, what evidence would you care to provide to dispell my impression that your conclusions about gender roles are any better-supported or less self-serving than Rushton’s claims about race?
Jason:
My mention of Rushton was in direct response to your demand, which was:
Rushton is definitely out of the mainstream of evolutionary psychology, but he is indeed an evolutionary psychologist, and one that is biased, prejudiced, and self-serving. In other words, he fits the criteria you laid out. I’m not clear why offering him as an example somehow means I engaged in smear tactics.
(As an aside, I was in Ontario getting my psychology PhD during the height of the original Rushton controversy, so I have some direct experience.)
Azkyroth,
I see. So this entire extended debate has been entirely due to you insisting on a blockheadedly literalistic interpretation of the phrase “exists in the real world”
No, this entire extended debate has been entirely due to you pretending, or perhaps genuinely believing, that a set of human beings does not “exist in the real world” unless it includes all organisms we currently classify as human beings.
Keep waiting, then. I’ve voiced concerns based on biased and fraudulent research of the past, which I’ve brought up examples to support in other threads in which you were involved
Sorry, but vague allusions to alleged examples from other threads does not constitute any kind of serious evidence. You don’t have any evidence of course, which is precisely why the sum total of your “criticism” of evolutionary psychology consists of endlessly repeating vague accusations of “bias,” “prejudice” and “self-serving” motives on the part of unnamed scientists with unidentified “research findings.” To all your “critique” ignorant, groundless, vacuous and craven would be kind.
Tulse,
My mention of Rushton was in direct response to your demand, which was…
So is that it, or do you have any more names? For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Rushton is biased, prejudiced, etc. So that’s one researcher you’ve identified, and one particular set of empirical claims about racial differences that most evolutionary psychologists would probably dispute, or at least consider unproven.
Anything else?
I’m rather glad I didn’t take the time to write the comprehensive literature survey you seem to expect as the minimum justification for any skepticism about your pronouncements. If I had, I’m fairly sure from watching you that you’d have just moved the goalposts on that, too.
Names for evolutionary psych proponents whose specific conclusions seem to be driven by prejudice and conflict of interest?
Let’s start with “Jason ________.”
Jason, what is the particular point you are trying to defend? I would agree that the bad old days of sociobiological “Just-So Stories” and undefended animal analogies supporting the social status quo (e.g., mallard duck “rape, ant “slavery”) are largely behind us. I would also suggest, however, that such days are not that far behind us (regardless of the rebranding to “evolutionary psychology”), and that plus the potential social impact of evolutional psychology claims means that such explanations require a more careful presentation of the evidence than is usually seen.
My main complaint about evolutionary psych, especially as it gets applied to questions of gender behaviour, is that adaptationist explanations are always favoured over simpler accounts involving plain rationality and self-interest of individual actors. For example, the finding that women primarily value status of their potential mate, whereas men value attractiveness, typically gets explained in evolutionary terms (e.g., see Buss’s work on this issue, and other researchers, who seem to be mostly male). But this explanation completely ignores the disparity in economic prospects of the genders in most modern cultures. Women typically will earn less than men over their lifetime, and therefore it is completely rational for them to place a higher value on the status and wealth of a potential partner. The leap that female choice is due to genetics shaped by natural selection is simply unwarranted. And indeed, when we look at women who are well-off economically, it turns out that they value physical appearance more, and partner wealth less, as would be completely predicted by a purely rational account, and contrary to an evolutionary explanation. (It may be noteworthy that one recent study demonstrating this has three female authors.)
Was the original evo psych “explanation” developed completely independently of bias, or does it instead reflect a prejudice to explain why the status quo is immutably stamped in our genes? I don’t know, but I think it is a question worth asking.
Another research project that Fhionna Moore, one of the authors of the paper linked to by Tulse, was involved in:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/science/face-value/2004/10/17/1097951555992.html
Evolutionary psychology is more than simply a rebranding of sociobiology. See my earlier list. I have some of my own problems with ES, particularly the Chomskyian LAD-inspired domain-specific modules.
Obviously preferences, perceptions, and behaviors are partly a function of the current status of the agent. But human beings are not perfectly rational utility maximizers. Their choices are informed by their developmental experience within a complex socioecological context, and are biased and constrained by a variety of biological, cultural, and environmental factors. This is not news to behavioral ecologists, especially those with a developmentalist approach.
Colugo, you are absolutely right that behavioural choices are constrained by many different factors, possibly including evolutionary history. My main problem with evolutionary psychology, at least in my experience, is that it tends to view evolutionary history as pretty much the only factor for many behaviours that also have cultural and environmental explanations.
Tulse,
Jason, what is the particular point you are trying to defend?
That evolutionary psychology is a legitimate and established science with many robust findings and well-supported theories regarding human behavior.
My main complaint about evolutionary psych, especially as it gets applied to questions of gender behaviour, is that adaptationist explanations are always favoured over simpler accounts involving plain rationality and self-interest of individual actors. …
I can tell from this comment and the assertions you make about Buss and EP research on mating strategies more broadly that you have no familiarity with the literature. I suspect you are just uncritically repeating a claim you found somewhere and have never even bothered to look at the actual research to see if the complaint has any merit. Do you really think Buss and his colleagues wouldn’t have considered the possibility you describe? Female preference for high-status males has been confirmed after controlling for income disparities and other confounding social factors. Even women who are themselves wealthy and powerful tend to value status in their mates over youth and physical attractiveness. And the opposite preference is exhibited even by low-status men. And of course, the findings are a lot more complicated than just “women want rich and powerful men, and men want hot young babes.” The literature describes many variations and conditional mating strategies that would apply under different conditions. For a more detailed explanation, see http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep042622732.pdf
which is a reply to some of the same kind of naive and uninformed criticisms made by David Buller.
I’m posting this because I know it will annoy the hell out of Azkyroth. Maybe he’ll actually learn something.
Ten varieties of evidence for innate psychological sex differences:
1. Many known biological differences that are plausible causes of psychological differences.
Large and persistent differences in sex hormones, especially pre-natally and during childhood.
Large number of hormonal receptors in the brain, including the cerebral cortex.
Many small physiological differences in men’s and women’s brains, including overall brain size (even correcting for body size), density of cortical neurons, degree of cortical asymmetry, size of hypothalamic nuclei, and others.
2. Many, possibly all, major anthropological sex differences are found universally across all human cultures, including the view that men and women have different natures, greater involvement of women in direct child care, more competitiveness in various measures for men than for women, greater spatial range travelled by men than women, and male domination of the political/public realm.
3. Stability of sex differences over time. Surveys of life interests and personality have shown little or no change over at least two generations.
4. Many large sex differences found in other mammals: aggression, investment in offspring, play aggression vs. play parenting, range size (predicts a species’ difference in spatial ability), interest in objects vs. conspecifics.
5. Many observed sex differences emerge early in childhood, some within the first week of life. Boys far more often than girls engage in rough play, involving aggression, physical activity and competition. Girls engage much more often in play parenting. Also sex differences in intuitive psychology. Most or all of these differences have been found across cultures and nations.
6. Evidence from genetic boys raised as girls. In 25 documented cases of cloacal extrophy where genetic boys were born without male normal genitalia, castrated and raised as girls, all 25 reported feeling they were boys trapped in girls’ bodies, and they exhibited male-specific patterns of behavior such as rough-and-tumble play.
7. Lack of sex differential treatment by parents and teachers. Large scale meta-analysis of gender-specific socialization studies have shown that there are little or no differences in the way parents and teachers treat boys and girls.
8. Studies of prenatal sex hormones. Girls subjected to an increased dose of androgens in-utero because of the condition congenital adrenal hyperplasia exhibit male-typical play patterns, greater competitiveness, and male-typical occupational preferences. Variations in fetal testosterone show a relationship to various cognitive abilities.
9. Circulating sex hormones. Many studies show that testosterone levels in the low-normal male range are associated with better spatial manipulation abilities.
10. Imprinted X chromosomes. In genetic imprinting, a chromosome can be altered depending on whether it was passed from the mother or the father. When a girl with Turner Syndrome inherits an X that is specific to girls, on average she has a better vocabulary, better social skills, and is better at reading emotions, body language and faces.
Many studies
that’s not going to do much for Azky, other than make him question why on earth you don’t provide direct references.
Tulse,
And indeed, when we look at women who are well-off economically, it turns out that they value physical appearance more, and partner wealth less, as would be completely predicted by a purely rational account, and contrary to an evolutionary explanation. (It may be noteworthy that one recent study demonstrating this has three female authors.)
You have misrepresented the findings of that study. It doesn’t address the relationship between female income/wealth and mate preference. The relationship is between female control of resources and mate preference. It doesn’t suggest anything about differences in mate preferences between rich women and poor women, but only a difference between women who control the resources, whatever their magnitude, and women who do not.
And your “interpretation” of the study conflicts with that of the lead author. The study is based on her PhD thesis, which you can find here. She concludes:
Certainly all kinds of just-so stories are presented as ‘evolutionary psychology’. However, your experience is rather incomplete, to put it mildly.
Good, now we’re getting somewhere. Unfortunately, your examples don’t really address the root of my objections, which it occurs to me that I may not have articulated clearly. Perhaps the comment I posted on the original post PZ linked to may help clarify my position:
You do not seem to be able to put together that evidential support for the first entry does not imply support for the second two. Given that you are apparently male and somewhat deficient in magnanimity, this is suspicious, since a person with those traits would be inclined to wish that the second and third claims WERE true for reasons of ego-salving, guilt-assuaging, and maintenance of privilege. The same goes for most advocates of items two and three, oddly enough.
Additionally, I’m calling bullshit on this without some very extensive and methodologically sound references. This is contradicted by my experience and observations nearly as strongly as “apples fall sideways”, and I expect a similar level of evidential support to be provided before I’ll credit it.
truth machine:
Sigh:
“criticizing my posting style doesn’t stop it, but rather tends to breed more” is compliant with contrariness.
Again, I didn’t comment on the source or validity of the contrariness, or whether the application implies anything here. I did this for the same reason as Kseniya, aspects of your introspection bemuses me.
And now I think I have spent too much time on a simple point, so my intention is to leave off here.
truth machine:
Sigh:
“criticizing my posting style doesn’t stop it, but rather tends to breed more” is compliant with contrariness.
Again, I didn’t comment on the source or validity of the contrariness, or whether the application implies anything here. I did this for the same reason as Kseniya, aspects of your introspection bemuses me.
And now I think I have spent too much time on a simple point, so my intention is to leave off here.
Again, I’m not sufficiently versed in EP and close areas, so I’m mostly reacting to others comments.
But here I would like to think that the same observation applies as elsewhere; scientists have different research strategies. If there is nothing that decides choice of null hypothesis (as for genomes were many changes are neutral) it is the results of the program that should interest us. Assuming of course that not unverified hypotheses are relied on, or heaped upon each other in a grand mess.
As comparison, EP is like string theory well connected with a working theory, or so I assume. But string theory has in 30+ years spawned results that shows it is compliant with earlier theory on one side (such as black hole entropy) and predicts new physics methods on the other (such as Ads/CFT dualities).
Still it is controversial if string theory is just a powerful formal method guiding math applications or if it is a verifiable theory on its own. I wonder if EP has even that much going for it?
Again, I’m not sufficiently versed in EP and close areas, so I’m mostly reacting to others comments.
But here I would like to think that the same observation applies as elsewhere; scientists have different research strategies. If there is nothing that decides choice of null hypothesis (as for genomes were many changes are neutral) it is the results of the program that should interest us. Assuming of course that not unverified hypotheses are relied on, or heaped upon each other in a grand mess.
As comparison, EP is like string theory well connected with a working theory, or so I assume. But string theory has in 30+ years spawned results that shows it is compliant with earlier theory on one side (such as black hole entropy) and predicts new physics methods on the other (such as Ads/CFT dualities).
Still it is controversial if string theory is just a powerful formal method guiding math applications or if it is a verifiable theory on its own. I wonder if EP has even that much going for it?
Additionally, the irritating de-emphasis in popular science reporting of the fact that the recorded differences between men and women represent averages, not absolutes, and in many if not most areas are on the order of a few percentage points, needs to be dragged outside and shot.
Yes, Thorbear, just as “scratching the itch only makes the itching worse” is compliant with “hemorrhoids”.
Indeed, I empathize. My harmless teasing and my insistence on NOT labeling the machine “an arrogant, humorless mechanical prick which should change its handle to ‘projection machine'” has been rewarded with being called “pompous” and “sad”. (I don’t object to “silly”.)
I realize that I’ve treated very gently, by the machine’s standards. I read Pharyngula, and I’ve seen The Terminator trilogy. But still.
Jason, you do make a convincing argument that, at the very least, I should take a more systematic look at the current state of evolutionary psychology research. I’ll ponder the references you’ve provided.
Additionally, I’m calling bullshit on this without some very extensive and methodologically sound references.
Ooo, Azky’s “calling bullshit.” Another powerful argument. Right up there with uttering the words “bias,” “prejudice” and “self-serving.”
See Lytton and Romney’s meta-analysis of gender-specific socialization studies. 172 studies involving 28,000 children. L&R found few or no differences in the way American parents raise their sons and daughters, and in particular, there was no difference in the category “Encouraging Achievement.”
Keep in mind that the specific properties being measured can determine why “there is a difference” and “there is no difference” can be compatible.
Thank you! For a while there I thought it was non-obvious. :-)
I was thinking of ‘mind fucking machine’ or possibly ‘fucking mind machine’, but I like yours better.
Thank you! For a while there I thought it was non-obvious. :-)
I was thinking of ‘mind fucking machine’ or possibly ‘fucking mind machine’, but I like yours better.
Link? I’d be very interested in seeing what measurements they’re actually basing that conclusion on.
*shrug*
It’s never been my intention to bash the truth machine. The truth machine has styled itself as machine that generates truth statements. It’s fun to play along with that conceit, though of course I am fully aware there’s an actual human being behind the machine. Any misunderstanding between that person and myself is my fault, for I have neither fully nor clearly explained myself to
ithim.