X-Message-Number: 22242 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:45:27 +0200 Subject: Re: Evolutionary psychology and memetics From: David Stodolsky <> On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > > Message #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 > > >>> "The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and >>> understand the design of the human mind. All of psychology, generally speaking, is trying to do this. >>> 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. Evolutionary biology tells us about the brain. >>> 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. Overblown. >>> >>> "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. I told you exactly how it could be supported, by going to the professional literature and seeing if the term is used. The fact that a few people write popular books with the term in it is totally irrelevant to whether the term is useful in a professional capacity. > >>>>> 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? The null hypothesis is that the term 'meme' is not describing anything new, nor is it giving a more precise definition of known facts. This is what you must reject. Otherwise, you are violating Einstein's maximum, 'Everything should be made as simple as possible, not simpler,' not to mention Occam's Razor. The evolution of culture is the subject of the field of anthropology, the transfer of messages from one person to another is studied in psychology, communication research, etc. What you are saying is, "So what, some evolutionary biologist comes from nowhere with a cool idea and everything that has been studied in these fields for a hundred years becomes unnecessary to understand." > >>> 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? Behavior is not biological. You are merely illustrating here a lack of precision in analysis that is typical for popularized conceptions of science. > In fact, you would think off hand that natural selection > would favor people who *didn't* seek out and get wasted on plant > products. An understanding of terror management theory would tell you that people will do anything, even die, to avoid coming face-to-face with the truth about their coming destruction. > 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.) This is a near tautology. The brain works by chemistry, therefor chemicals effect how I feel. > > 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. The most important distinction in drugs is between those that are addicting and those that are not. If that isn't where you are starting, you aren't going get far. Drugs like antibiotics, etc., are totally irrelevant in a discussion like this. We are talking of psychoactive substances. > >>>> 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. Well, I was asked to review this volume and I can state it is very solid methodologically and a significant advance in our understanding of human behavior. If the best you can do is skim the headlines, your judgment is worth just that, a skim. >>>> 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. Then you should expose yourself to the vast psychological literature on this subject. You can just as well gain an understanding of things by studying how they function as by how they developed. > >>> 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. Of course, how could it be otherwise? > You are > moving the discussion from the sea bottom to the froth on top without > providing any logical connections to the deep structures. The evolved behavior is going to react to the environment it finds itself in. Both are needed to explain the results. We get nowhere closer to a solution to social problems by saying that it is a result of evolved behavior. > >> 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. :-) The power holders congratulate you. I am sure they will also be pleased to destroy you and any cryo-facility that threatens their position. > >> 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. You display your ignorance. |n any case, we are not talking of Becker, but of terror management theory. > Evolutionary psychology is largely sociobiology with a new > name. And you know what flack *that* got. And with good reason. Sociobiology was presented as a provocation by an intellectual entrepreneur, however, he underestimated how violent the response would be. > >> 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. No one view is going to 'tie it all together'. People do not spend ten years studying neurobiology, group behavior, learning theory, etc., because it is fun. Each of these areas has made solid contributions to our understanding. If you think you can read some pop science and have a real understanding of these things, it just show you are foolish. If you seriously want to say anything new about a highly complex area, you try to publish in the appropriate journal and see if it is accepted, and if it is, see what reaction you get from the field. There are no short cuts to gaining real knowledge. If all you want, however, is a feeling that you have great understanding, then your current course and opinion about academic work is appropriate. Not everyone can be a scientist, of course, but most can, at least, read the appropriate literature. The types of pronouncements you have been making show you haven't done that. dss David S. Stodolsky SpamTo: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22242