|
Post by brandt on Feb 23, 2012 11:20:21 GMT 10
1. Human behavior is genetically determined.
Human behavior derives from two ingredients. Evolved adaptions and environmental input.
2. If it's evolutionary, we can't change it.
From Buss: "knowledge of our evolved social psychological adaptions along with the social inputs that activate them gives us tremendous power to alter social behavior . . . "
3. Current mechanisms are optimally designed.
I don't think that this needs any elaboration. It clearly isn't optimal.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 23, 2012 17:13:24 GMT 10
Please note, the post above is about the contentious subject of Evolutionary Psychology, not about Evolutionary Theory per se. 1. Human behavior is genetically determined.
Human behavior derives from two ingredients. Evolved adaptions and environmental input.
2. If it's evolutionary, we can't change it.
From Buss: "knowledge of our evolved social psychological adaptions along with the social inputs that activate them gives us tremendous power to alter social behavior . . . "
3. Current mechanisms are optimally designed.
I don't think that this needs any elaboration. It clearly isn't optimal. The presentation of these notions as misconceptions appears to conceed that behaviours are not innate (genetic), can be changed, do vary between societies and that we need not accept current behaviours as being carved in stone. Where does that leave Evolutionary Psychology?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 23, 2012 19:37:35 GMT 10
Where does that leave Evolutionary Psychology? A case of the Sociobiologists new clothes.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 23, 2012 23:37:06 GMT 10
It leaves evolutionary psychology exactly where it was, now though there will be a better understanding of where it is coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2012 20:44:02 GMT 10
1. Human behavior is genetically determined.
Human behavior derives from two ingredients. Evolved adaptions and environmental input. As was predicted at the beginning of the Human Genome Project, getting the sequence will be the easy part as only technical issues are involved. The hard part will be finding out what it means, because this poses intellectual problems of how to understand the participation of the genes in the functions of living cells
Sydney Brenner, FRS (Born this day 1927) The participation of the genes in the functions of abstract thoughts is beyond understanding I am going to go ahead and reject the idea that question is "beyond understanding." It can be understood, of that I have no doubt. It will take more work. Luckily there are those that will continue the work.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 25, 2012 21:53:59 GMT 10
2. If it's evolutionary, we can't change it. Seems that what you have said about mate selection strategies and waist to hip preferences. From Buss: "knowledge of our evolved social psychological adaptions along with the social inputs that activate them gives us tremendous power to alter social behavior . . . " What if we have already altered our evolved psychology? The power to change is greater with learned behaviours.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 6:13:59 GMT 10
3. Current mechanisms are optimally designed.
I don't think that this needs any elaboration. It clearly isn't optimal. While I would like to be the one to make the trifecta, I don't think anyone on either side of the Evolutionary Psychology debate has said current mechanisms (behaviours) are optimal (let alone "optimally designed"). The closest seems to be words to the effect that we're stuck with what we've got, so to optimise that, we'd do best to accept that limitation and to learn to live within it. Yes. It would be the height of ignorance to ignore our genetic heritage in our efforts to understand human nature. We can meet our potential but we cannot exceed it.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 8:07:32 GMT 10
For the record, I am not ideologically opposed to the possibility of innate (genetic) human behaviours ( instincts). While our evolutionary line shows diminishing instincts and increased reliance on learned behaviours, the question remains as to whether or not in humans that tendency is now fully realised. Our increased brain size gives us the capacity but that would only be a precondition for total reliance on learned behaviours. Have any residual instincts (more or less fixed behaviours) proved to be such a liability in diverse situations that natural selection has eliminated them entirely (except for some primitive reflexes)? I don't know. However, I have yet to find valid and reliable evidence of humans instincts, despite the possibility having been intensively researched since the late 19 th century. Thus far the null hypothesis has proved to be the most defensible position and the various affirmative hypotheses have been discredited. The question persists. Carl Sagan, in The Dragons of Eden, postulated that the widespread notion of dragons and fear of reptiles is innate and derives from our evolutionary heritage. He wrote: However, the ubiquity of belief in the book's eponymous dragons might easily be explained by the ubiquity of dinosaur fossils. The burden of proof remains with those who assert human's have instincts.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 8:22:04 GMT 10
More in the spirit of the thread's title "Misconceptions about Evolutionary Theory": [/size] (And How We Know It Really Happened)[/b] [Linked Above][/center]
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 26, 2012 11:03:04 GMT 10
Brother, I live in Texas. I have to, on occasion discuss evolution with folks that just have it wrong. This is common for people that have a little information and personal agenda to advance (usually a religious agenda).
Human behavior does not stem from genetics. It is limited by it in that we cannot be anything other than what we are. Individuals don't evolve and evolution (as a process) does not operate on foresight.
Punctuated evolution, I used to a graphic that I used for classes someplace but I can't seem to find it at the moment, works on a plateau and spike analogy. This spikes come about mostly through changes in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. There is no reason for a multitude of traits to exist simultaneously. That is until there is some change in the environment that creates stronger selection pressure. These changes can be disease/plagues, extreme climate shifts, geological separations, and a host of other pressures. There can even be pressures that seem less extreme but have strong ramifications.
When the first ape was able to use a stone tool to improve his own survival prospects that same ape had a better chance to breed spread his/her genes. The tool use being something that allowed more efficient use of energy. The ease and precision by which we can throw a spear or use a hammer is predicated on our bodies being built a certain way. A good tool user could outperform a poor tool user. The introduction of tools changed the EEA.
I have been quite interested in three topics that you might share an interest in. The first is the prevalence of sociopathy and frequency dependent selection. I have been doing some reading on the side for a couple of years (not nearly as indepth as I would like to). I am interested in how such a contra-social trait - sociopathy - could maintain. Second, homesexuality seems to fly in the face of evolution by natural selection/sexual selection. I have yet to come to any solid information either way. Third, (a topic that I know a lot more about) why do eyewitnesses perform as poorly as they do?
Then I have my "pet topic," the co-evolution of dogs and humans.
I do have a question for you. You have mentioned a few times that we are losing instincts. This of course requires that we had instincts. What evidence do you have, or have come across, that supports this thesis? The burden of proof being on the party that makes the claim.
|
|