X-Message-Number: 22232 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:54:33 +0200 Subject: RE: #22217 - Denial of Life From: David Stodolsky <> On Sunday, July 20, 2003, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > Message #22228 > From: "mike99" <> > Subject: RE: #22217 - Denial of Life > Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0600 > > David Stodolsky <> wrote: >> I have to point out here that evolutionary psychology has become >> something of fad, and many of the claims have no backing, in terms of >> evidence. The term 'meme' is not used by professional psychologists. >> However, Becker's theory does assume that social learning is a crucial >> and determines how the fear of death will be buffered.<ike: > > Mike LaTorra: > Ev-psych is still fairly young, especially when compared to hoary old > Freudianism (and its variant descendants). Terror management theory (TMT) cannot be considered a descendent of Freudianism, even though that is one prior framework that is used by many in the area. > As such, ev-psych has not yet > accumulated a large body of experimental verifications. Almost > certainly > some ev-psych claims will be found to be wrong, either in part or in > their > entirety. But I think it premature to dismiss the field as a "fad." I am not dismissing it, just pointing out that the claims vastly exceed the backing available. It has a lot of potential to explain group processes, such as exclusion of cheaters, altruism, etc. > The fact > that only a few scientists, such as cognitive psych./philosopher Daniel > Dennett and psychologist Susan Blackmore, have yet to fully embrace the > "meme" concept may, or may not, prove significant in the long run. New > theories are rarely embraced immediately by one and all experts in any > field. The attempt to move the concept from the popular press, which Blackmore, for example, focusses upon, failed totally. There was a conference at Cambridge a few years back and nothing since, as far as I have heard. Ideas simple are not transmitted accurately from person-to-person as, for example, viral genes are. A hundred years of research on learning and memory is not going to discarded, because of some neat sounding idea from evolution/genetics. > > > > Mike L. >>> We can be fairly certain, though, that most people lack a constant, >>> pessimistic, terrorized fear of death because such a state of being >>> would be >>> contrary to the survival program of the genes. > > David S. >> There is no support for this that I am aware of. >> >> Most people lack a constant fear of death, because no culture could >> function if its people were sitting in corners shivering with terror >> while contemplating their eventual demise, so every successful culture >> must provide a worldview that buffers this fear. > > Mike L. > I'm sorry, but your cultural explanation has no more support than my > evolutionary psychology explanation. There are over a hundred well controlled studies in TMT, so this simple is not true. > If either were true, the result would > be the same. Do you know of (or can you envision) an experiment that > could > decisively distinguish between these two as the source of repressed > mortality awareness? If my position is right, we would expect to see increased anxiety when cultural systems are undermined. There are also studies that show you can manipulate, in the lab, people's responses to mortality salient stimuli by increasing self-esteem, etc. This shouldn't happen if it is in the genes. Death understanding couldn't have occurred prior to modern humans coming on the scene about 150,000 years ago and that is a pretty short time for any genetic evolutionary changes to occur. Cultural evolution is thousands of times faster than genetic evolution. Thus, we would expect a cultural evolutionary development, unless that couldn't solve the problem, and it clearly does according to TMT. > > > Mike L. >>> Becker seems to be saying >>> that we must accept our mortality, embrace it, and move on. No >>> cryonicist >>> wants to do that! > > David S. >> Becker's theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us how >> death >> anxiety shapes culture and human behavior. Many different responses >> (cultures) have been developed to buffer death anxiety. He said that >> anyone who wants to understand human behavior must accept mortality >> avoidance as an implicit motive, that is, theorists must accept it, >> not >> 'users'. In fact, he would say that it is only in cases of cultural >> breakdown that the user accepts mortality. It has been shown in the >> lab >> that there is a reflexive withdrawal from mortality salient stimuli, >> so >> the user can never accept death face-to-face, so to speak. "Death, >> like >> the Sun, does not tolerate the direct gaze" (from memory), George >> Santayana, Spanish Philosopher/Writer, 1863-1952. > > Mike L. > For those interested only in descriptions, Becker may be a fine guide. > For > those interested in fundamental mechanisms at the lowest levels of > biological and cognitive functioning, descriptions are insufficient. I > tend > to be dubious about descriptive approaches that try to infer causation > without being able to demonstrate it rigorously. Perhaps this is > simply my > own psychological peculiarity? ;) The controlled experiments do yield cause and effect. Becker didn't do any, but they are the mainstay of TMT. > Well, at any rate, I find ev-psych to be a more interesting approach > because it promises at least the possibility of reaching the deep > level of > explanation that I am looking for. Whether ev-psych will deliver on > these > promises is yet to be seen. So give it time. My guess is that we are > still > decades away from resolving the issue. Stay tuned. At any given time, we must deal with the evidence available. I know of none that requires an ev-psych explanation. dss > David S. Stodolsky SpamTo: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22232