Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.
[Edward Gibbons]
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« How do you teach evolution? | Main | How is an eyeball like an erection? »
Category: Humor
Posted on: October 19, 2007 8:14 PM, by PZ Myers
But of course! When a group of people express a similar behavior pattern, such as defending racist conclusions or making ev-psych style explanations, there can only be one possible explanation: there must be a genetic basis for the behavior. I can't imagine any other reason.
Comments
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:29 PM
Shouldn't the evidence be what determines whether racist conclusions be defended? If the argument leading up to it is solid, why should we reject the conclusion just because it violates accepted social norms? At this point it is very unlikely that science will produce evidence to justify the claims of racial supremacists, but if racism were actually useful and accurate I fail to see why something being racist would be bad.
Not that this esoteric and 'academic' point is really relevant, given how quickly you are to condemn others as racists in the first place. I don't think you're really grasped what others are saying, because that would require effort, and the ol' label-and-condemn routine is so very much easier.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:32 PM
Is evolutionary psychology a dirty term now? I'm not a biologist and it's hard to keep up with which particular branch is inherently evil and racist.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:35 PM
It's certainly true that evo psych tends to attract people who want to tell just-so stories, but the field is hardly pseudoscience. It's just one of those inevitable consequences of being a fledgling science. The ability to study genetic change over time in depth and associate those changes with phenotypic variance is only now being granted to us - the next twenty to fifty years will be a very exciting time in neurology, cog and evo psych, and genetics.
Assuming, of course, that people like PZ don't scare up-and-coming scientists away from the fields first.
Posted by: Dan | October 19, 2007 8:36 PM
Caledonian, as you've repeatedly ignored: The evidence isn't solid. In the past couple of decades, much of the 'hard' evidence and argumentation for causation over correlation has also been verifiably fraudulent. It's probably more politically irritating than it is scientifically stupid, but it's pretty scientifically stupid as well.
Also, do you really have to colonize every new thread about this with the same argument? PZ provided a bunch of links to someone repeating the (ancient) arguments regarding race and intelligence. It even ended with an angsty Nietszche quote about going on and on repetitiously and never ending.
Call it a hint.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:37 PM
I just want to know if it's time to burn my Stephen Pinker books. I don't want to be exposed to any unclean ideology.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 8:37 PM
And we don't know if global warming is happening, we don't know if it's caused by humans, and we don't know that it will be a bad thing. The evidence just isn't solid enough - to convince denialists.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 19, 2007 8:44 PM
Since Caledonian has already suggested that he finds few comments of worth on this blog, I'm thinking of taking steps to improve their quality.
The first and easiest step would be to give the boot to any pernicious, repetitive, obsessive poseur who is often one of the first to rush to make comments on any article here, and whose numerous comments are usually humorless, dismissive, and disruptive, and empty of any evidence that might support his typically anal right-wing/libertarian assertions. Getting rid of such a nuisance would immediately improve the threads around here, I'm sure.
Hmmm. Who could possibly fit that description...?
Posted by: windy | October 19, 2007 8:46 PM
Christian, the holy prophets Cosmides and Tooby have given us this mantra that should repel any unclean thoughts:
"The central premise of the adapted mind is that there is a universal human nature"
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 8:53 PM
You know, this has been difficult for me.
I have a big respect for PZ and agree with him on 98% of issues. I enjoy posting here and I like this blog. This is a good place to hear liberal opinions on scientific issues.
I'm sorry that my denunciation of James Watson's comments as pathetic didn't go far enough for some people. I know that I alienated others by insisting that unpopular voices should have a right to be heard- and I accept that criticism.
What can I say? I'm going to leave this blog in regret, but not in anger. It's really been an upsetting experience to me over these last few days.
I really wish PZ the best of luck. I like him and I like his blog.
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 8:59 PM
windy,
Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a universal human nature?
Christian,
Don't worry, your Pinker books are safe from the fire. Evolutionary psychology is an established branch of evolutionary science with a voluminous literature and many eminent researchers. Robert Trivers, whose work on the evolutionary psychological basis of parental investment, parent-offspring conflict, and reciprocal altruism in the 1970s provided the basis for much of today's leading research, was recently awarded the 2007 Crafoord Prize in Biosciences for "his fundamental analysis of social evolution, conflict and cooperation."
Posted by: Dan | October 19, 2007 8:59 PM
Well, this got dramatic fast.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 9:00 PM
CB, don't go - if only people who agree with PZ's ideological stances post, only outlaws will have guns. Or whatever the blogging equivalent of that state is.
Posted by: Fur-Bearing Brick | October 19, 2007 9:01 PM
Blasphemy! Everyone knows the real explanation for everything is...
42!!!
Posted by: Moses | October 19, 2007 9:05 PM
Beyond one comment talking about the poisoned well of hatred made by both sides and my unwillingness to participate in it, I deliberately avoided the Watson threads.
And here we are, a couple of days later. The natural and logical consequences of the entrenched, stupid intolerance of exhibited on both sides of the issue has made on of my favorite blogs look like The New Republic. Congratulations. After reading these threads, and people leaving and juvenile threats being made, I get to say you've almost all acted like twats and you all need a time-out.
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 19, 2007 9:10 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a universal human nature?
Is there any evidence that there is? Or at least that there is a non-trivial human nature.
Posted by: windy | October 19, 2007 9:10 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that there is not a universal human nature?
the point of my too-obscure joke was that some EP'ers advocate a more universal human nature than others, and would therefore be less "heretical" in light of the recent discussion.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 9:12 PM
Short answer, as I understand it: Evolutionary psychology is not inherently evil and racist and/or sexist. Unfortunately, many of the field's alleged findings, especially as reported to the public, contain an order of magnitude more bias than actual data, and it suffers from the general malady, epidemic during the 19th and early 20th centuries, of people using it to dress up their own stupid bigotry.
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 9:14 PM
coathanger,
Is there any evidence that there is?
You mean apart from, say, the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species? If there's no human nature, how is this possible?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 19, 2007 9:15 PM
To me the just-so stories look more like "the closer you get to humans, the worse the science gets"... But I'm optimistic that it doesn't have to stay that way. Considering comment 10, evolutionary psychology can hardly be called "a fledgling science".
Also, newsflash: the post was humor. You failed to notice, Caledonian, and made the first comment about this failure. Even though the post says "Humor" in the "Category" line. You are clearly more autistic than I am.
Posted by: Boronx | October 19, 2007 9:16 PM
I wish you wouldn't ban Caledonian. He's been persistent, but not disruptive, which IMHO, is almost the only worthy reason to ban commenters. I will think much less of this site after such a ban.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 9:20 PM
Wait- was PZ talking about banning me- or Caledonian?
I supposed he was talking about me because I've made a few first posts today and made a couple of sarky comments (above).
I'm confused. and upset.
I'm quite happy to leave if PZ feels that I'm detracting from the quality of the blog- even though it would make me pretty sad to leave such a consistently great blog.
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 9:23 PM
Azky,
Unfortunately, many of the field's alleged findings, especially as reported to the public, contain an order of magnitude more bias than actual data
This is exactly the kind of broad, wishy-washy attack on evolutionary biology in general that creationists make. Refer to unidentified "findings," use weasel words like "many," and make unspecific accusations of bias and nefarious motives, in order to try and discredit the discipline as a whole without actually making any serious scientific critique.
Posted by: Gary | October 19, 2007 9:23 PM
CB, don't go. A thick skin is good for more than protection from germs.
PZ, I'm wondering if anyone has discovered the gene that makes people want to blog. By the way, I used to blog but I don't anymore. I'm wondering if quitting is determined by a different gene.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 9:23 PM
Reproductive isolation and a relatively consistent set of anatomical, physiological, and genetic patterns do not imply the existence of "human nature" in the sense the term is usually meant, that implying the existence of a set-in-stone deterministic set of inborn behavioral traits common to all humans and which cause different humans to inevitably act in certain ways, with the present set of social arrangements and patterns as the predestined result. The fact that a person smart enough to turn on a computer could possibly be confused on this point baffles me.
Posted by: windy | October 19, 2007 9:24 PM
PZ:
Oh, give it a rest already. If anyone in the recent run fits your description, it's John Smith, not Caledonian. And since when is being first to comment an offense?
Christian:
I'm sorry to hear that, I like your comments. It's hard to tell from your measured 'tone' that it was getting to you personally.
Chris's parody of EP was great, btw.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 19, 2007 9:26 PM
No, he has been disruptive. He's a one-note critic, and has been for several years now -- and he openly admits his contempt for the site. That and his obsessive degree of commenting are a grating pain-in-the-ass to me, and I'm the one who has to manage this crap. If he can't restrain himself and make an effort, I'm not going to put up with him.
Kicking him out would probably also reduce the posting volume by 10%, and clear away the particularly acrid, bitter flavor from the place.
(Christian Burnham, there is no intent or cause to ban you -- disagreement is OK, and you're welcome to stay on as long as you want.)
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 9:27 PM
If you, as you seem to be, chastizing me for failing to distill the entirety of the literature of a field and the criticism thereof and provide a point-by-point refutation, with extensive citations, of every claim I find dubious in a blog comment made with the implicit but clear intent of articulating a general state of affairs in layman's terms, you're either dishonest or insane. Either way, I find your comparison ironic because this is exactly the sort of unreasonable demand Creationists tend to make in spoken debates.
Posted by: JRY | October 19, 2007 9:27 PM
Ah, don't worry about it. I am pretty sure that he was not referring to you.Posted by: thalarctos | October 19, 2007 9:27 PM
Christian, PZ's not talking at all about banning you.
Posted by: Graculus | October 19, 2007 9:28 PM
Actually, there were folks in the Watson threads that made Caledonian look full of sweet reason.
My main beef with Caledonian is that he 1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight and 2) very, very rarely supports or clarifies his position. Something he actually did a bit of in the Watson threads.
He's obnoxious, but not a troll.
Posted by: jfatz | October 19, 2007 9:31 PM
Wait- was PZ talking about banning me- or Caledonian?
I'm rather new and sporadic here, but it seems pretty obvious that he was directing his snark towards Caledonian. (And wasn't being serious in banning... Just twisting his kind of complaints.)
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 9:34 PM
ASD of some form (Asperger's, perhaps) would go a long way towards explaining Caledonian's behavior. Unfortunately, it's not much of an excuse. I have Asperger's as well and I manage to not be that level of an irritant. I think...
Posted by: Heathen Dan | October 19, 2007 9:36 PM
"Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight"
This sounds like trollish behavior IMO.
Posted by: Numad | October 19, 2007 9:37 PM
Graculus,
"1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight[...]"
Wouldn't that qualify as a subtle form of trolling?
Posted by: mndean | October 19, 2007 9:38 PM
I can't resolve this statement:
My main beef with Caledonian is that he 1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight and 2) very, very rarely supports or clarifies his position.
with this:
He's obnoxious, but not a troll.
The first statement is the definition of a certain kind of troll.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 9:38 PM
Incidentally, PZ and others with some knowledge here...
One of the common practices in evaluating innate vs. learned behavior seems to be the assumption that any behavior common to all, or nearly all, cultures is probably innate. If it's a relatively basic behavior or organizational principle, though, can it actually be ruled out with any confidence that the behavior may have originated, for whatever reason, very early in human social evolution, prior to the dispersing of modern humans throughout the world, and have become part of the learned behaviors of all the descendents of that initial society? ...Is this phrasing making sense?
Posted by: Chris Chandler | October 19, 2007 9:39 PM
My main beef with Caledonian is that he 1) Always states his position in a way that is guaranteed to be mis-construed, just so he can have a fight...
And here I was on the verge of abandoning all hope after all these years that anyone who actually posts here realizes that.
A cookie for you, says I!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 9:39 PM
Ah- OK PZ cleared it up- he was referring to Caledonian.
As for me- I think I need a rest of a couple of weeks from posting here. Yes- I was brought almost to tears by some of the comments on the Watson thread. I don't think I did a great job of articulating my position and fell into the position of defending comments I completely disagreed with on point of principle. Someone called my defense an enablement of racism and that really hurt. My post was even featured on some feminist blog as an example of kow-towing to racists.
I let myself get too caught up in some of these issues. Really- I need a life.
For the record I disagree completely with Caledonian's libertarianism, but I think that he/she is nowhere near worthy of banning. I think Caledonian intentionally walks a dangerous line and annoys the hell out of some people. Half of me wants to defend him/her and the other half wants to scream at him/her. Whatever- I would be sad to see him/her go and urge PZ to rethink this one.
Anyway- I plan on doing a tearful resignation from this blog every Friday from now on- just to test who's supporting me.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 19, 2007 9:41 PM
Yes, but they stay on those few threads, because they know they have nothing to contribute elsewhere. In other words, they shut up for most of the year.
I don't even think he wants to have a fight. He just seems to take for granted that a) everyone who isn't stupid understands everything he mentions, so there's no need to explain anything; b) everyone who doesn't understand something he mentions is stupid beyond any hope of explanation, so there's no need to explain anything. It logically follows that everyone who asks him for an explanation is stupid beyond all hope. Let me diagnose the general lack of empathy that comes from having more of Asperger's "syndrome" than I: he doesn't seem to understand that there are intelligent people who don't think in exactly the same ways as he does.
Is Caledonian beyond all hope of learning empathy? That is an interesting question. Someone should try to test it... it could only be a win-win situation.
Posted by: Michael X | October 19, 2007 9:41 PM
For my part, I expressed my hopes that Caledonian would actually refine his behavior, which I pointed to as less than desireable, with the air that he wasn't talking to ants but people. And I, like the vast majority, simply asked for even where to begin looking for info on what he was referenceing. I, like all the rest, got nothing.
Also aside from optimism, PZ does have to manage this monster of a blog, so I can see where the frustration begins to mount after days of battle royal going on in his threads, basically taking the place over.
As for you CB, please stay. Your comments and thoughts are appreciated.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 19, 2007 9:43 PM
You're more right than you know. But let us say rather that I have too much misplaced faith in the ability of intelligent people to overcome obstacles.
This will probably be the last. It was a pleasure debating with some of you.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 19, 2007 9:45 PM
:-D
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 9:47 PM
Azky,
Reproductive isolation and a relatively consistent set of anatomical, physiological, and genetic patterns do not imply the existence of "human nature" in the sense the term is usually meant,
I don't think you have any idea of the sense in which the term is usually meant, and in any case here we are talking about the sense in which evolutionary psychologists, and specifically Tooby and Cosmides, are using it.
...that implying the existence of a set-in-stone deterministic set of inborn behavioral traits common to all humans and which cause different humans to inevitably act in certain ways, with the present set of social arrangements and patterns as the predestined result.
That's not an accurate description of the meaning of "human nature" as used in evolutionary psychology. It's a parody. You're attacking a parody, just like a creationist parody of physical evolution ("Those crazy evilutionists! They say we're descended from Monkeys! Oh, and did you know Hitler was an evolutionist?").
Of course, the reason you keep making accusations of bias and nefarious motive, and misrepresenting evolutionary psychology as the crudest form of genetic determinism, is that you have no substantive critique to offer, isn't it?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 19, 2007 9:49 PM
Granted, I've never seen a living breathing creationist... but I think you have too little faith in that. Otherwise you wouldn't say the opposite.
In any case, I will not forget your lasting contribution: the Tc as the unit of insanity. Just please explain if the scale is linear, logarithmic or whatever. :-)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 19, 2007 9:49 PM
Caledonian- for what it's worth- I find that after I tune out your standard superciliousness, you often make a lot of sense and are even likable, though I admit it's an acquired taste.
I still think you were unjustly maligned in the Watson threads, but that's because you choose to walk a dangerous line and do it with glee. I disagree with all this talk of banning.
Anyway- time for me to take my promised 2 week break from teh Pharyngula. I need to calm down and I also need to get a life.
Posted by: Fox1 | October 19, 2007 9:51 PM
I feel much the same way about Caledonian's comments as I do about firearms. I find the sound and the thunder entertaining, as long as they're pointed in a sensible direction.
The amount of time Cal spends putting holes in paper targets and making watermelons explode, versus the amount of time spent shooting up shopping malls, metaphorically speaking, is, I imagine, the point of debate.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 9:57 PM
If that's not what researchers in the field actually think, good. However, please square your assertion that this is not more or less what they think, at least in crude approximateion, with, for instance, people like yourself who seem to take for granted that the present level of gender discrimination in society reflects the inherent psychological characteristics of male and female humans as opposed to an element of cultural baggage that may perhaps have served a purpose once but has been doing more harm than good for longer than anyone presently alive has been so and both can and should be pitched out.
Posted by: James Stein | October 19, 2007 10:02 PM
Jason, since you've asserted some three times in one post that Azky has completely misrepresented EvoPsych's definition of human nature, would you please share a rough summary of it, or a link to one?
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 10:06 PM
Actually, I wasn't aware that the phrase "human nature" was even used outside of folk psychology and philosophy. If it in fact is, I suppose I may well have misrepresented the definition of it in those other usages, though I don't see what relevance that fact has to my skepticism about what strike me as premature and self-serving arguments advanced in favor of biological determinism, crude or otherwise.
Posted by: AlanWCan | October 19, 2007 10:07 PM
Hey, Seems to be a lot of huffing and puffing going on. Reminds me of kindergarten. But folks, the Killfile is your friend. Three strikes and you're Caledonian (Gone baby, gone). Save your sanity.
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 10:22 PM
Azky,
If that's not what researchers in the field actually think, good.
It isn't.
However, please square your assertion that this is not more or less what they think, at least in crude approximateion, with, for instance, people like yourself who seem to take for granted that the present level of gender discrimination in society reflects the inherent psychological characteristics of male and female humans as opposed to an element of cultural baggage that may perhaps have served a purpose once but has been doing more harm than good for longer than anyone presently alive has been so and both can and should be pitched out.
I have never said, and do not believe, that "the present level of gender discrimination in society reflects the inherent psychological characteristics of male and female humans." I have said, and do believe, that there are significant psychological differences between males and females and that those differences likely explain in part the gender differences in social, political, and economic circumstances that we observe.
Posted by: MartinC | October 19, 2007 10:25 PM
I tend to view Caledonian's contribution to this blog in the same way Dawkins was portrayed on South Park;
"he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you"
Which is not to say he isn't correct in most of his argumentative points, but as a strategy its unlikely to win him too many friends.
As for the race thread I certainly wouldn't put his comments in the same category as that John Smith character and were at least capable of being countered with empirical data - although Caledonian failed himself to provide enough of that to bolster his points.
By the way PZ cannot ban Christian Burnham.
Imagine the headlines on Uncommon Descent!
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 19, 2007 10:26 PM
Do you, or do you not, believe that the present level of gender discrimination in society is justified, or at least made inevitable, by biologically deterministic elements of neurology and psychology?
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 10:26 PM
James Stein:
Here's a description from Pinker, which I think most evolutionary psychologists would basically endorse:
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 19, 2007 10:32 PM
You mean apart from, say, the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species? If there's no human nature, how is this possible?
Well, it could be that we have built a complex schema that allows us to sort things is a manner that makes sense to us and yet has no real corollary in the real world. You know, we make up a group, name it, and then claim that it has a nature. Remeber back in the good old days when other races weren't the same species as us? That was so great.
Posted by: Ken Cope | October 19, 2007 10:37 PM
I doubt that Caledonian is capable of behaving in any mode other than that of reactionary, contrarian troll. I'd be curious to see if Caledonian could sustain an independent blog, advancing original arguments, and defending original positions. As it is, sniping in every single Pharyngula thread at everybody else with the effrontery to respond is just plain boring, predictable, parasitic behavior.
If I saw Caledonian's blog in PZ's blogroll, I'd check it out. As for the roll played in these threads, why not find some high school kid to code a bot to troll in Cal's name? The challenge would be to tone down the empathy.
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 10:41 PM
coathanger,
You're still not making any sense. What is this "complex schema that...has no real corollary in the real world" that you're referring to? Are you seriously claiming that the genetic and anatomical differences between humans and, say, goldfish are not "real world" differences?
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 19, 2007 10:51 PM
Are you seriously claiming that the genetic and anatomical differences between humans and, say, goldfish are not "real world" differences?
No, I'm saying that the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not necessarily correspond with the real world and that the way we figure out who is human is based more on social and linguistic factors than most would have you believe. Moreover, "a set of emotions, motives, and cognitive abilities shared throughout the species" is certainly a traditional view of what human nature is, and is not generally how we determine who is human, or is not "the fact that we are able to distinguish human beings from members of other species"
Posted by: windy | October 19, 2007 10:52 PM
Something interesting just showed up in the sidebar...
99% Genetic? Individual Differences in Executive Functions Are Almost Perfectly Heritable
How can this be, after all we know that environmental factors utterly dwarf genetics with regards to human cognitive traits...
Posted by: miko | October 19, 2007 10:57 PM
There is nothing wrong with evolutionary psychology as a field in principle. Obviously all our mental faculties evolved. However, the way it is practiced (by many) and presented in the media is misleading and irresponsible.
It tends to attract successful people in developed countries who want pseudoscientific explanations for why history has played out in their favor. For some real stomach-churning examples, see this "Darwin at the London School of Economics" cluster of econ-quacks.
People doing the best evolutionary psychology rarely identify themselves as such, and are in different fields. Terence Deacon's (a neuroscientist) book on language evolution is grounded in actual scientific research. It is much better than Pinker's, which is grounded in pat, self-serving narratives to justify cultural norms, then lightly dusted with cherry-picked results from the literature.
Posted by: SixOfSwords | October 19, 2007 10:58 PM
Hey Christian,
Someone implied in another thread I was just about the same as a Nazi appeaser because I agree that, for some unknown reason, group differences in intellectual ability exist. When something like that happens, you just have to stand up and laugh. These people know nothing about you, your relationships, your emotions, or your history. In other words, it's not a big deal.
I've worked with plenty of kids over the years and the same patterns you see in their behaviors display themselves on boards like these. With the combination of anonymity and lack of accountability, you see some comments that are just plain mean and designed for maximum hurt.
It seems fairly likely that the tenor of some posters' comments are due to a touch of PDD, Asperger's, or autism. This is hardly surprising due to the salience that this kind of medium has for many on the autistic spectrum. If one goes in recognizing this, how angry can one really get about comments on an ephemeral forum?
My advice? When the emotions start welling up due to something someone says online you should:
a) go to the gym,
b) eat a nice meal,
c) listen to some relaxing music,
d) have sex, or
e) do all four of the above at the same time, if you're really talented.
The real world is not writ on a monitor.
Stick around, I've been lurking for a long while and I like your comments.
~6~
Posted by: poke | October 19, 2007 11:01 PM
It seems to me that the main problem with evolutionary psychology is the psychology. The pure cognitive science approach, with its speculations on modularity and symbol-processing, and reliance of folk psychology, is pretty unlikely to begin with. But when you start talking about how your abstract speculative account of the mind evolved you've gone off the deep-end. Any account of the evolution of behaviour would surely have to be heavily steeped in neurobiology and developmental neurobiology. Changes in behaviour would involve changes in the development of the brain and would be constrained by that. How can you even begin to talk about the subject if you ignore biology as a matter of doctrine?
Posted by: thalarctos | October 19, 2007 11:04 PM
Looks like they discuss those points in re the study's limitations:
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 11:16 PM
coathanger,
No, I'm saying that the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans does not necessarily correspond with the real world and that the way we figure out who is human is based more on social and linguistic factors than most would have you believe.
Still nonsensical, I'm afraid. In what way does "the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans" not correspond to the real world? You're now saying that the "animals" we classify as human beings are imaginary are you?
Posted by: sanDiego | October 19, 2007 11:23 PM
Anyone have any thoughts about James Watson's recent comments and history of similar thinking?
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 11:26 PM
poke,
I have no idea why you think evolutionary psychologists "ignore biology as a matter of doctrine." Where did you get that strange idea from?
And why would "any account of the evolution of behaviour ... surely have to be heavily steeped in neurobiology and developmental neurobiology?" It's like saying any account of the evolution of physical traits would have to be heavily steeped in cellular biology and biochemistry. An evolutionary account of a psychological trait is based on the same basic evolutionary concepts and processes as an evolutionary account of a physical trait---reproduction, genes, fitness, natural selection, and so on.
Posted by: Jason | October 19, 2007 11:29 PM
thalarctos,
I think he was being sarcastic.
Posted by: Tree | October 19, 2007 11:29 PM
From that article:
That study seems to have shown that genes affecting Executive Functions react to environment in a consistent way; i.e. identical twins (identical genes, identical environment) differ from each other only slightly in regards to Executive Function, while fraternal twins (half identical genes, identical environment) differ proportionally to their shared genes.
Posted by: poke | October 20, 2007 12:06 AM
Jason,
The "autonomy of psychology" is a founding principle of cognitive science. The idea, due to Chomsky, is, as I said, to ignore biology as a matter of doctrine. Modern cognitive scientists accept it to greater or lesser degree. Regardless, there's no biological evidence for computationalism, symbol-processing, modularity, or anything else the likes of Pinker, Cosmides and Tooby are enamored with, in the brain.
It's more like saying any account of the evolution of physical traits would have to be steeped in biology and developmental biology (these would be the bodily analogues of neurobiology and developmental neurobiology). And the good ones are. To continue the analogy, EP is like studying the evolution of the humors, or some other long-discredited article of folk physiology.
Unless you know something about the underlying biology and development of a trait, behavioural or physical, your evolutionary speculations are going to amount to nonsense.
Posted by: MikeM | October 20, 2007 12:22 AM
What the heck. It's Friday night, I got nothing better to do than post on a blog.
Caledonian, even though I disagree with your comments, I didn't find them tough to swallow. I reacted very differently to your comments and some other guy; the guy who started yelling; He Who Must Not Be Named; JS.
It's not you, or CB.
I still don't see associating skin color with intelligence. I think that's a mistake. It wouldn't lead to the same problems here, but look at what this kind of thinking justified: Nazi Germany is one example of negative stereotypes gone crazy. It wouldn't with you; I feel confident saying that. But just think it over; this kind of thinking has lead to many unfortunate historical events. I'd hate it if your kind of thinking took over.
I want to change the subject, frankly. So here goes:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/DDB9SQVJ3.DTL
Please, everyone, go have fun with this idea.
It's been a hard week in Lake Morris.
Posted by: Jason | October 20, 2007 12:45 AM
poke,
The "autonomy of psychology" is a founding principle of cognitive science. The idea, due to Chomsky, is, as I said, to ignore biology as a matter of doctrine.
Well, whatever Chomsky might have said, evolutionary biologists do not "ignore biology." Biology obviously underlies all of evolutionary psychology, since the brain is a biological organ and psychological traits arise from physical traits of the brain.
Regardless, there's no biological evidence for computationalism, symbol-processing, modularity, or anything else the likes of Pinker, Cosmides and Tooby are enamored with, in the brain.
What are you talking about? There is overwhelming evidence for modularity and computationalism from neurobiology.
It's more like saying any account of the evolution of physical traits would have to be steeped in biology and developmental biology (these would be the bodily analogues of neurobiology and developmental neurobiology). And the good ones are.
Nonsense. Evolutionary accounts of physical traits are descriptions of those traits in terms of genes, adaptation, environment, selection pressure, fitness and so on. The same concepts and processes are used to generate evolutionary accounts of psychological traits. Obviously, any account of any trait, physical or psychoilogical, must be consistent with the laws and principles that govern lower-level biological processes, but I have no idea why you would think that is not the case for evolutionary psychological accounts.
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2007 1:06 AM
sanDiego @65 for the win!
nice one.
Posted by: foxfire | October 20, 2007 1:30 AM
PZ Myers wrote
Oh PZ please don't do that! He's no more annoying than AFDave is on the RDF Evolution & Natural Selection forum. Which is pretty annoying and is it annoying enough to quell freedom of expression? At least Caligula.. Calidick.. whatever.. doesn't pretend to be more than one person - not that AFDave does either (I'm thinking about some of the nutjob fly-bys on RDF).
Besides, he(?) is kinda cute in a way... like the guy who tells a gal that it's 9 inches by his ruler and she says to herself: honey, if that puppy was 6 it would have to know how to multiply.
Posted by: miko | October 20, 2007 1:59 AM
Jason said "Nonsense. Evolutionary accounts of physical traits are descriptions of those traits in terms of genes, adaptation, environment, selection pressure, fitness and so on."
Yup... and have been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power. One of the themes of biology for the last 10 years (and this blog) has been re-integrating development with evolution, recognizing the complexity of the relationship between genotypic diversity and phenotypic plasticity, and generally giving up on bean-bag genetics as a useful mode of describing how populations and species change over time.
Posted by: miko | October 20, 2007 2:02 AM
I think the worst thing about the most recent spats with Caledonian is that since he never sources his opinions, it's impossible to tell which he is more ignorant about: statistics or biology.
He's an intellectually lazy shouter and a tedious bore, and PZ has every right to do whatever he wants with him. You can only engage with a rigid self-righteousness for so long.
Posted by: Jason | October 20, 2007 2:19 AM
miko,
Yup... and have been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power.
Another typically vacuous criticism of evolutionary psychology. Which accounts have been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power? What argument or evidence was presented to justify the claim of inadequacy?
Of course, evolutionary accounts of physical traits have also "been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power" by various critics of evolution.
The fact that an evolutionary explanation of either a physical or a psychological trait "has been found" by some person or other to be "inadequate" obviously doesn't mean the claim of inadequacy is justified.
Posted by: Colugo | October 20, 2007 2:37 AM
1960s-70s: behavioral ecology (antagonistic pleiotropy, evolutionarily stable strategy, inclusive fitness, optimal foraging, parent-offspring conflict, reciprocal altruism...)
The combination of behavioral ecology with preexisting approaches produced multiple evolutionary schools of human behavior. These schools sharply contrast in some areas, but are mutually influencing in others.
behavioral ecology + human ethology -> human sociobiology
behavioral ecology + cultural ecology -> human behavioral ecology (Darwinian anthropology)
behavioral ecology + cultural selectionism -> dual inheritance
behavioral ecology + cognitivism -> evolutionary psychology
behavioral ecology + group selection -> multilevel selection
behavioral ecology + developmental psychology -> evolutionary developmental psychology
Posted by: coathangrrr | October 20, 2007 2:58 AM
Still nonsensical, I'm afraid. In what way does "the set of animals that we include in our conception of humans" not correspond to the real world? You're now saying that the "animals" we classify as human beings are imaginary are you?
Do you not understand the difference between a set and an individual?
Posted by: miko | October 20, 2007 3:54 AM
Jason: "Of course, evolutionary accounts of physical traits have also "been found to be inadequate in their explanatory power" by various critics of evolution."
That's exactly what I said... they have been. But not by "critics of evolution"--by evolutionary biologists. That's how science works: you keep looking for better or more complete explanations, e.g. by integrating developmental biology into ideas about phenotypic change.
Your view of evolutionary biology is limited and out of date (based on your description at the end of #71), as is that of most self-styled evolutionary psychologists. Seriously, we're talking about people who come up with adapationist explanations for Jews being good at math from money lending. That shit isn't even "fringe" for EP.
Posted by: truth machine | October 20, 2007 4:18 AM
Shouldn't the evidence be what determines whether racist conclusions be defended?
The evidence should be what determines whether Caledonian is a blithering idiot.
Posted by: truth machine | October 20, 2007 4:25 AM
I get to say you've almost all acted like twats and you all need a time-out.
That's not exactly the best language