X-Message-Number: 22238 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:00:05 -0400 From: Keith Henson <> Subject: RE: Evolutionary psychology and memetics At 09:00 AM 22/07/03 +0000, David Stodolsky wrote: > > 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. I see. Not even one example. > > "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. That's a bizarre statement. *If* you are up on the last 30 years of work in understanding evolution, it is just a clear statement applying mainstream evolutionary theory to psychology, though it is certainly radical to entrenched psychology. > >>> 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. Didn't say it was common, just that you made an unsupportable blanket statement. > >>> 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. Would it help you to use older equivalent terms like "culturgen"? I am not hung up on the word. Meme is just short and descriptive of the packets of information that in total make up culture. Memes or cultural elements are subject to evolution because some become more common and some less over time. Is there anything in this statement that you find untrue? > >> 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. We agree on something. :-) > > 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. I don't equate them. But perhaps you could tell me where along the process you disagree. Evolution shaped everything biological, either directly or as a side effect. People are (to varying degrees) susceptible to drug rewards. Do you agree with me that's a really weird thing for evolution to have directly shaped? In fact, you would think off hand that natural selection would favor people who *didn't* seek out and get wasted on plant products. So given the fact that chemical rewards exist, they *must* be a side effect of something else. Every neural connection in a brain is mediated through chemicals. That's basic physiology. It includes social rewards. If you have ever given a public speech, and come off the platform with a serious buzz, you have experienced this effect first hand. Do you agree with me that social rewards are mediated (not equated!) by neural chemicals such as dopamine and endorphins? (And others that mediate information flow from the senses to increasingly abstract representations.) Is it too much of a jump to understanding addictive (rewarding) drugs as getting into the causal chain downstream of the social reward circuits that release the natural variety? >No room here for a distinction between >addicting and non-addicting drugs, The distinction should be between chemicals that act on the brain's reward/behavior reinforcing center(s) and those that act in other places/ways. >not to mention the differences >between drugs produced by the body and those not. Well, with natural endorphins and opiates there *isn't* any difference. You can get just as addicted to injecting endorphins as you can to morphine. > >> 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. You could provide pointers. http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000367/ Some of what is there has a slight Minsky "Society of Mind" flavor. "Sheets-Johnstone (1990) is about conceptual origins. In particular, the book addresses the question of the conceptual origin of fundamental human practices and beliefs that arose far back in evolutionary human history: stone tool-making, counting, consistent bipedality, language, burying the dead, engraving and painting." Man, talk about a mixed bag. stone tool-making (2.5 million years) counting, (unknown, recent probably) consistent bipedality, (4.5+ million) language, (unknown) burying the dead, (70,000 max) engraving and painting. (20, 000) I have doubts about the value a work that starts out this way. >(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. I don't know if you consider evolution a reductionist or emergent approach. There are positive aspects to both approaches to learning about the universe. I don't consider myself dominated by either one. > >> 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. Did any of the studies of the SS and related matters such as battered wife, fraternity hazing, army basic training, etc. take an evolutionary approach? I don't see how you could get anywhere without a fundamental notion of how such a trait could have been selected in our remote past. > > 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 was talking about why I think evolved psychological traits appropriate to a tribal environment underlie events in the complex modern world. You are moving the discussion from the sea bottom to the froth on top without providing any logical connections to the deep structures. >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. I take the opposite view, that people at any level are more controlled by memes (ideas) they have little control over than the other way around. Schemes of memes yet. :-) >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. Becker is probably more "popular literature" than evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is largely sociobiology with a new name. And you know what flack *that* got. >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. I see psychology making significant progress in a lot of areas, particularly brain scans. But the only way to tie it all together is through evolution. Keith Henson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22238