X-Message-Number: 22235
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:56:03 +0200
Subject: RE: Evolutionary psychology and memetics 
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 11:00  AM, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #22231
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:45:04 -0400
> From: Keith Henson <>
> Subject: Evolutionary psychology and memetics
>
> Michael LaTorra 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.
>
> Could you provide a few examples of such claims?

I haven't been following this particular controversy, but there was one 
speaker at a recent event held by the Ernest Becker Foundation that 
made this point. So, that would be one point to start seeking critical 
info.


>
> "The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and
> understand the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an
> approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from 
> evolutionary
> biology are put to use in research on the structure of the human mind. 
> It
> is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behaviour. 
> It is
> a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic 
> within it.
>
> "In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines 
> that
> were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by 
> our
> hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, 
> and
> behaviour is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening 
> up
> new ones." Leda Cosmides & John Tooby.
>
> http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html


Frankly, this is self promotional nonsense. We have recently seen, with 
ethnomethodology/social constructionism/post-modernism, how a group of 
academic entrepreneurs attempts to colonize various fields by claiming 
their approach is in some way 'new', more 'fundamental', etc. There is 
a lot of good work going on in evolutionary psychology, but not that I 
have seen from these authors, who seem to use it to support the status 
quo.



>
>>> The term 'meme' is not used by professional psychologists.
>
> That's a mighty strong statement.  What, for example, is Dr. Susan
> Blackmore?  How about Dr. Paul Marsden?
>
> "Dr. Paul Marsden is a psychologist and visiting research fellow of the
> University of Sussex.  Using memetics, the Darwinian science of 
> culture and
> creativity, to study infectious ideas . . . ."

Three support the hot new idea and 300,000 ignore it. Do a search in 
psych abstracts for 'meme' and then for 'learning' and 'memory' and let 
us know what you find.



>
>>> However, Becker's theory does assume that social learning is a 
>>> crucial
>>> and determines how the fear of death will be buffered.
>
> "A rose by any other name . . . ."

No, it is not just another name. It is cool sounding ideas vs solid 
research.



>
>> Mike LaTorra:
>> Ev-psych is still fairly young, especially when compared to hoary old
>> Freudianism (and its variant descendants). As such, ev-psych has not 
>> yet
>> accumulated a large body of experimental verifications.
>
> Of course, when psychoanalysis was subjected to experimental 
> verification
> it fell short.  (I.e., studies showed it was useless.)

There is no doubt about this.



> People paid for
> psychoanalysis through the nose however, and the willingness of people 
> to
> part with large sums of money in exchange for attention contributed to 
> my
> understanding of how cults use attention rewards.  Cult victims (not to
> mention psychoanalysis patients) are bonded to attention rewards 
> through
> the same brain reward circuits active in drug addiction.  (And
> susceptibility to chemical addiction is the direct consequences of the 
> way
> social rewards are chemically mediated.)

This is a vast oversimplification. I don't think we gain anything by 
trying to equate social processes with direct injection of addicting 
substances into the body. No room here for a distinction between 
addicting and non-addicting drugs, not to mention the differences 
between drugs produced by the body and those not.



>
>> 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? ;)
>
> And mine.  Human psychology was this blob floating out there with no
> foundations.  Evolution underlies every thing biological, including
> psychology.  Evolutionary psychology is putting a foundation under
> psychology.  Painful process to be sure.

If this is your opinion of psychology, why bother reforming it? Go 
directly to philosophical archeology. "Roots of thinking" by 
Sheets-Johnstone is a great starting point.

(Intelligent) behavior is an emergent process. It is unlikely that a 
full understanding of it can be gained by a reductionist approach, such 
as that suggested here.



>
>>   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.
>
> Ev-psych suggests plausible (and sometimes testable) origins to
> psychological traits that are otherwise mysteries.  Take Stockholm
> Syndrome, or, more descriptive, capture-bonding.  The evolutionary
> selection of *this* psychological trait in the face of frequent 
> capture of
> (mostly) women between tribes is obvious.  Bond to your captors and you
> have a good chance at being an ancestor.  Don't and wind up on the 
> menu.

The 'Stockholm' syndrome is by no means accepted at face value. Similar 
phenomenon, such as prisoners in Nazis concentration camps 'falling in 
love' with their tormentors have been studied too, with little effect, 
it seems.


>
> Another is an entire complex of wired-in psychological traits that 
> prepare
> a group for aggressive war in times of privation or looming privation
> (probably by increasing the "gain" on circulating xenophobic memes).  
> The
> counter tribal defense mechanism is the kind of psychological traits
> brought out by a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 attack.

A simpler explanation is that the press in the USA is dominated by same 
set of economic interests as those that the profit from war. With this 
explanation, you can take various measures to return to a situation 
where there is adequate diversity in coverage so that people have some 
basis for exercising their vote effectively. If you review what is 
available in the literature from people doing research based upon 
Becker's ideas, you can get a clear understanding of why we see this 
kind of reaction. With the above explanation, the power holders don't 
have to worry.

I suggest we accept the idea that in any given period there are certain 
ideas promoted by those in power, which make life more comfortable for 
them. To penetrate this propaganda, you must go to independent sources. 
In scientific areas, this means the journals. You are not going to get 
a current understanding of highly complex processes, such as group 
behavior, from the popular literature. That is driven by what is 
acceptable to publishers and what sells. This is typically just the 
opposite of the solid knowledge in a field, where one, not particularly 
exciting (to the public), finding after another has been accumulating 
for a hundred years.


dss


David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22235