|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 11:27:34 GMT 10
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. Where the evolution of behaviour is not genetic but memetic individuals can evolve and can even choose to evolve.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 11:39:52 GMT 10
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. The punctuated spikes which manage to break through the general statis or equilibria of a gene pool are thought to be most usual among small, isolated communities, subject to intensive selection (hence few groups even manage to survive).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 11:47:50 GMT 10
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. Memes can change the EEA. Perhaps of some relevance here is another quote from Carl Sagan:
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 12:10:08 GMT 10
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 suspect mental health surveys miss many sociopaths for a couple of reasons, resulting in their prevalence being under-estimated. I further suspect sociopathy has a large bearing on dysfunctional aspects of societies. Perhaps homosexuality is memetic and thus not dependent on genetic hereditary and thus, in turn, not subject to natural selection. Without meaning to be pejorative, I suspect it may be related to fetishes, whereby one identifies with and seeks to invoke aspects of one's first intensive sexual arousal (even some experiences which may on the surface be commonly thought to be asexual). Eye witnesses demonstrate how limited and selective our attention is and how creative our memories can be, especially when there is the pressure of an expectation for us to recall details. I would be interested in your perspective. I am only broadly acquainted with the co-evolution of dogs and humans. I would like to know more.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2012 12:29:46 GMT 10
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. This is more of an inference from the prevailing null hypothesis of human instincts: If, as is the prevailing scientific opinion, we have no instincts now (apart from primitive reflexes) and our closest non-human, evolutionary cousins still exhibit a few instincts, presumably our common ancestor had instincts (evidence of which would does not survive in the fossil record). I speculate that more or less fixed behaviours may become a liability in a diverse and changing environment once the capacity to rely on social learning had been acquired (and we agree that social learning is significant). Thus, I do not necessarily claim that humans had and then lost instincts (they may have been lost on our evolutionary line before we become Homo sapiens), only that we do not have them now. That negative proposition is easily falsified by validly demonstrating instincts operating in humans.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 26, 2012 12:45:21 GMT 10
Grossman, Ph.D, LtCol US Army (ret) wrote a book called "On Killing" in which he mentioned that certain sociopaths would not only flourish in the military but could be a benefit to society within that structure. There is another book called "The Sociopath Next Door" which discusses sociopaths and their typical characteristics. Many are very successful in the military and not surprisingly on Wall Street and the equivalent in other countries. Sociopaths, even though they can't feel like regular people do, are able to pretend that they do. The prevalence may be quite a bit higher than we think it is. Not caring would be individually beneficial but it wouldn't really work out in the long run if everyone did it, hence the frequency dependent selection. I am toying with the idea that sociopathy is a birth defect, if not something that happened that intervened during certain crucial experience dependent phases of development.
As I said, this is a topic that I am not as well read as I would like to be. There is a researcher that I have met recently and if he is brought on board I will have the opportunity to work with him and might be able to shed some light on the subject. In any case I suspect that sociopathy can be very subtle and we might not be able to detect it with current measures. I have been researching an idiographic approach instead of a nomothetic approach that might improve our measures on this and other subjects.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 26, 2012 12:51:11 GMT 10
Part of me hopes that homosexuality is genetic so that there is a stronger case to protect the rights of homosexuals in society. There are many of compatriots in the Western world that believe that it is a choice. That is a good reason to determine the factors that select one meme and not another to be perpetuated. Otherwise we are left with having to determine a genetic function. That would be difficult considering that most, I am guessing, homosexuals don't procreate. I would like to go on record saying that it doesn't matter, ethically, if homosexuality is genetic or memetic or choice and that people should be left to their own devices in their personal lives. It is a tough question for the social learning and the genetic behavioralist (whom I have had problems with). Our society certainly does not condone or teach homosexuality and it would be tough to find any genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
Certainly a tough question but it is one that we won't be able to ignore. I am not sure what is happening in Australia but in the United States the "gay marriage" issue is now a federal issue. The Supreme Court of the United States will eventually take up the question and have to render a decision. What is happening in Australia?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 26, 2012 12:55:13 GMT 10
I became interested in eyewitness issues when I learned of the Innocence Project www.innocenceproject.org and I found that approximately 75% of those exonerated by DNA evidence had been convicted and incarcerated on eyewitness evidence alone. Why are eyewitnesses so inaccurate? I started a literature review about the topic to learn all that I could. Even without prompting eyewitnesses are bad. We can't rule out normative social influence because it does happen. Luckily many law enforcement agencies have taken note and they altered their procedures to try to mitigate the impact of the faulty eyewitness evidence. It appears that there are severe limitations in our ability to accurately recognize novel faces and certainly novel faces of other races.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 26, 2012 12:57:45 GMT 10
The co-evolution of dogs an humans is just something fun that I do on the side. I don't put in much serious time for it. I did present on the current research a few years ago. It is just a topic that is personally fascinating to me.
Perhaps these several topics should be separated out into separate threads to avoid overlap?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 26, 2012 12:58:42 GMT 10
Memes and genes. There has to be something that carries them and a memetic infection can certainly alter the EEA, much like the stone axe began to allow certain types to flourish while others did not do as well.
|
|