No more Chopra-woo for me

Idling Darwinism is indeed a scourge so, to some extent, I feel Chopra's pain when he is confronted with allegedly "evolutionary" "explanations" for human behavior.

But Chopra himself is a supreme idiot whose existence depends on shallow minds.

Idling Darwinism is indeed a scourge so, to some extent, I feel Chopra's pain when he is confronted with allegedly "evolutionary" "explanations" for human behavior.

Such as?

For those interested, I've also tackled Chopra on my blog.

Such as Allen McNeill's evolutionary explanations for religious belief, to pick one of the more bizarre and extremely stupidass examples (but there is tons of such crap out there).

Again: not defending Chopra's intellect here. The guy is a turd.

But idling Darwinism is a scourge. Be wary.

Chopra

"They simply step over the boundary of believable explanations."

See, this is why Chopra is a lightweight. His is an argument from incredulity.

The problem with idling Darwinistic explanations for human behavior is not that they step over the boundary of believable explanations.

In fact, it's because the explanations ARE so believable to folks seeking or interested in an evolutionary explanation for everything that the "research" which "supports" the explanations tends to be publicized.

I submit that most human behaviors which people consider uniquely "human" are not adaptations but merely fortunate or unfortunate side effects of a big brain which, thus far, has not proven lethal but which, ultimately, will lead to the extinction of humans and a return to a planet where stupider animals will rule until the sun explodes.

"My" theory is at least as valid as the horseshit peddled by MacNeill and other idling Darwinists. It's just not very "interesting" and I won't be able to extract money from a granting agency to study it.

I'm always suspicious of evolutionary "just so" stories about human behavior, but Chopra's target is not just the drastic overreach of many evo-psych theorists but any neurophysiological basis for consciousness and behavior. He's using it as a launching pad to peddle yet more New Age immaterialist horseshit.

Here's the only response to Choprawoo that you'll ever need. although I might have to update it a little for his latest idiotic foray into evolutionary biology.

I submit that most human behaviors which people consider uniquely "human" are not adaptations but merely fortunate or unfortunate side effects of a big brain

This is all rather vague. What evidence supports the claim you make above? What specific behaviors are you referring to? You mentioned religion. On what basis do you conclude that religious behavior is not adaptive (or, rather, that it was not adaptive in the ancestral environments in which most human evolution occurred)?

On what basis do you conclude that religious behavior is not adaptive

LOL.

Chopra's target is not just the drastic overreach of many evo-psych theorists but any neurophysiological basis for consciousness and behavior

Yes, and that's utterly moronic as anybody who's ever gotten high will tell you.

I'm always suspicious of evolutionary "just so" stories about human behavior, but Chopra's target is not just the drastic overreach of many evo-psych theorists but any neurophysiological basis for consciousness and behavior.

I don't think Chopra has made any serious argument against either a neurophysiological basis for consciousness and behavior in general, or evolutionary psychology in particular.

You guys are right of course, but I'll take chopras income over your arguments any time. I'm sure there's an evolutionary explanation for that :)

Great White Wonder,

"LOL" is not an answer to the question I asked. Do you have one?

I think the air is leaking out of your tricycle tires, Jason.

"LOL" is not an answer to the question I asked. Do you have one?

Oh, I've got lots of answers to your questions, Jason.

[pours a tall beer]

How long until your mom calls you for dinner?

Great White Wonder,

Oh, I've got lots of answers to your questions, Jason.

Let's see them, then. Show me the evidence you think demonstrates that religion is not an adaptation.

Show me the evidence you think demonstrates that religion is not an adaptation.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Jonestown.gif

[munches on pretzel stick]

These things are salty.

Ooh, "idling Darwinism" appears in the comments of this post more than there are google hits for it. Looks like the creationists are trying to push a new hit phrase.

FWIW, Huffpo has a tip line. Why not give them a tip like "Chopra is an idiot". Who knows?

Maybe it will continue the removal of the wool-over-Arianna's-eyes that started some time back. And three cheers for Al Franken for doing his part.

Great White Wonder,

How is Jonestown evidence that religion is not an adaptation? You seem to be under the false impression that adaptations are beneficial at all times and in all environments. They're not.

"You seem to be under the false impression that adaptations are beneficial at all times and in all environments. They're not."

Well, let's see. Religious belief is a false impression and you seem to think that religious belief is an adaption. So a false impression is an adaptation, too.

Man, this is fun.

[sips beer]

I like Guinness.

Ooh, "idling Darwinism" appears in the comments of this post more than there are google hits for it. Looks like the creationists are trying to push a new hit phrase.

Truly hilarious. Are any of the folks in your google hits creationists?

Okay, I'm headed over to iTunes to leave another set of Chopra audio book reviews. How does this sound?

"Oh, goodie, another steaming pile of Chopra-poo. I hear Chopra-poo.

Kidding! Save your money. Go find a decent science book and listen to something written by someone intelligent for a change. That's an order."

But will it get past the censors?

Well, he's on HuffPo because he draws hundreds of comments on his idiocy. I followed one of his so-called defenses of religion in response to Sam Harris once, and the thing had over 500 comments on it. That's a lot of traffic. Just sayin'.

Great White Wonder,

Religious belief is a false impression and you seem to think that religious belief is an adaption.

I think that religion is likely to be an adaptation. You seem to think it definitely is not an adaptation. I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence in support of your claim. The mere fact that religion sometimes causes harm is not evidence that it is not an adaptation. In the modern world, I think religion most likely causes far more harm than good, but that's not evidence that religion is not an adaptation, either. The environment that matters to the question is the one in which our brains evolved, not the current one.

Well, he's on HuffPo because he draws hundreds of comments on his idiocy.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the amount and quality of negative comments that Chopra's nonsense has been getting on HuffPo. I expected to see a lot more positive responses from the many liberals who are partial to New Age nitwittery. Maybe they don't hang out there.

just curious GWW-

do you think the entire field of sociobiology is woo?

or just the newer evo psych field?

some subsections of each?

surely you aren't implying there is no genetic component to human behavior?

you should be more clear as to exactly what you mean here.

I think that religion is likely to be an adaptation.

That's nice. Prove it. Or shut up.

...The environment that matters to the question is the one in which our brains evolved, not the current one.

[finishes first glass; pours another]

Uh, "our brains" changed over time along with everything else on earth, including the rest of our bodies. Do monkeys have religion? Cats? Roaches? Yeast? Did the dodo have religion?

Maybe your belief that "religion is adaptive" is itself adaptive. It doesn't make me want to have sex with you, I must say. Maybe a few more beers will help, though.

surely you aren't implying there is no genetic component to human behavior?

Of course not. Diseases of the brain are heritable. Nobody doubts that.

The problem is that finding a gene that affects "a behavior" or is associated with "a behavior" is not a license to manufacture wholly unsupported bullcrap that the "behavior" is adaptive. But that's what happens.

Jason, Have you considered that a different level of abstraction may be useful? Perhaps asking if religion is an adaptation is the wrong question. How about the possibility that belief itself is an adaptation? Or, more accurately, that the ability to hold mental images of generalized cause and effect relationships about objects in the world that can affect our survival - is an adaptation. Not just for humans but for most animals with a CNS that includes a brain.

Just as my cat believes that whining by her bowl will get it filled and whining by the door will get it opened. If belief is an adaptation, a property of brains, then it would also be useful for believing animals to have some emotional commitment to its beliefs. They are what get us through life to a great extent. They are often hard earned and I can see why we would protect and defend them - even in the face of some counter eveidence.

I look forward to the day when cybernetic brain implants are ubiquitous, so that when some fool woo addict starts babbling about mystical notions of dualism, I can ghost-hack him and change his mind.

you should be more clear as to exactly what you mean here.

So should Tyler DiPietro. He refers to "just so stories" and to the alleged "drastic overreach of many evo-psych theorists" but doesn't give any specific names or theories. Does he include people like Roberts Trivers, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, Martin Daly or Margo Wilson in this assessment?

Great White Wonder,

That's nice. Prove it. Or shut up.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to prove it yet. Do you have evidence to support your claim that religion is not an adaptation or don't you?

Uh, "our brains" changed over time along with everything else on earth, including the rest of our bodies.

Er, yes. And the point of this observation is.....?

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to prove it yet. Do you have evidence to support your claim that religion is not an adaptation or don't you?

Nobody needs to prove that anything *isn't* an adaptation, Jason.

Pelican,

I certainly think it's useful to ask whether particular kinds of belief (such as religious belief) are adaptive as well as belief itself. I'm not sure it would even be possible to be a rational being, conscious of one's own existence and of one's sense perceptions, without also holding various beliefs, so perhaps the latter question is really just the same thing as asking whether conscious experience and rationality are adaptive. There are obvious benefits to being able to rationally relate causes and effects ("If I don't collect more food before winter I will starve.").

... and a return to a planet where stupider animals will rule until the sun explodes.

You have failed to establish that stupider animals (e.g. bacteria) do not presently rule.

I love how Julia Sweeney takes on Deepak Chopra on her CD, "Letting Go Of God."

http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/index.html

I believe she finally determines, "Deepak Chopra is full of shit."

Jonathan Badger,

Nobody needs to prove that anything *isn't* an adaptation, Jason.

GWW claimed that religion (along with "most human behaviors which people consider uniquely 'human'") is not an adaptation. There is no reason to believe that claim is true unless there is evidence to support it.

Jason, I think that rationality and consciousness is over-rated - but of course it is an adaptation. My cat didn't reason that whining by her bowl would get it filled. It was a repeated cause and effect that she learned - in the form of a now dependable belief.

The purpose of belief is to replace rationality with something tested in the real world - something more reliable and faster.

Rationality is an adaptation that's useful for finding candidates for our belief system - and for editing our beliefs as conditions change - though some persons use it about as much as my cat it seems. Belief candidates must first be tested and proven by life experience. If they survive and become a trusted belief then we defend them.

That article PZ links to is pretty odd. Chopra is objectively full of fecal material, but did that Doerring guy actually write that depression is some sort of evolutionary adaptation?

Depression doesn't "motivate" you to do anything. In fact if there's a core feature of depression it's probably that it fucks with your motivation to do much of anything.

If he wasn't ostensibly debunking Chopra-woo, I don't think PZ would find much to agree with in that Doerring post.

But perhaps I'm misreading.

GWW claimed that religion (along with "most human behaviors which people consider uniquely 'human'") is not an adaptation. There is no reason to believe that claim is true unless there is evidence to support it.

No, rather that's what one *ought* to believe until there is evidence against it. And such evidence does not consist of the mere envisioning of evolutionary scenarios that could explain how something could evolve. At a minimum it requires comparative analysis of multiple organisms with and without the phenotype under consideration.

Of course not. Diseases of the brain are heritable. Nobody doubts that.

so all the rest is woo?

interesting.

stranger and stranger, as they say.

You have failed to establish that stupider animals (e.g. bacteria) do not presently rule.

Indeed. It must have been the beer talking. ;)

so all the rest is woo?

Is it "woo"? I have no idea.

I do know that "woo" is a pretty stupe sounding bit of slang that you should drop like a hot rock if you want to be taken seriously.

But I digress.

Jonathan Badger,

No, rather that's what one *ought* to believe until there is evidence against it.

Really? Do you also think we ought to believe all other empirical assertions until there is evidence against them, or just this one?

And such evidence does not consist of the mere envisioning of evolutionary scenarios that could explain how something could evolve.

No one has suggested that "mere envisioning" is evidence. You're attacking a strawman.

Is it "woo"? I have no idea.

well, that certainly isn't what you implied earlier.

by dismissing evolutionary explanations for human behavior, you automatically dismiss both of those entire fields of endeavor, unless you would like to get specific about which specific studies you find agreeable, and which not?

Should we analyze some samples here?

do you find twin studies to be completely useless, for example?

if so, why?

to use more eupemisms you will find distasteful with your beer and pretzels, it sounds more like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and generalizing about the usefulness of evolutionary theory as applied to human behavior itself.

so that then begs the question...

what else do you have as a theory to explain and predict human behavior?

hence the reason, I think, Jason was poking you with a stick.

I do know that "woo" is a pretty stupe sounding bit of slang that you should drop like a hot rock if you want to be taken seriously.

so you don't take PZ seriously either, I take it?

I think you've had quite enough beer.

Really? Do you also think we ought to believe all other empirical assertions until there is evidence against them, or just this one?

No, but accepting the null hypothesis until shown otherwise is pretty standard behavior in science. And I've yet to see a model of evolution that takes adaptation as the null hypothesis. Do you know of one? Actually, what *is* your background, out of curiosity?

No one has suggested that "mere envisioning" is evidence.

Well, it isn't clear what "evolutionary psychologists" do beyond that. Typical EP studies like Cosmides & Tooby's "Evolution of Social Behaviour Patterns in Primates and Man" contain no sequence data, no experiments, no fossil evidence -- nothing but their philosophizing about how they think evolution works.

He refers to "just so stories" and to the alleged "drastic overreach of many evo-psych theorists" but doesn't give any specific names or theories.

That is because rigorous scientific models do not, to my knowledge, exist in evo-psych. All I have read are explanations about how evolution works and deductions from that of how our mind should work. What actual evidence do you think exists that religion is an adaptation? What do you think of other ideas about it simply being a misfiring byproduct our propensity to infer causal agency?

Does he include people like Roberts Trivers, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, Martin Daly or Margo Wilson in this assessment?

I'm not familar with all of them or what their specific claims are, can you direct me to any research results or literature that produces evidence for their claims?

Jonathan Badger,

No, but accepting the null hypothesis until shown otherwise is pretty standard behavior in science.

You're not "accepting the null hypothesis." You're claiming that an empirical, factual assertion should be believed in the absence of evidence that it is true. That's not scientific, it's irrational.

Well, it isn't clear what "evolutionary psychologists" do beyond that.

Well, it may not be clear to you, but I can only assume that's because you don't know anything about what evolutionary psychologists do.

Typical EP studies like Cosmides & Tooby's "Evolution of Social Behaviour Patterns in Primates and Man" contain no sequence data, no experiments, no fossil evidence -- nothing but their philosophizing about how they think evolution works.

Cosmides and Tooby have never written anything called Evolution of Social Behaviour Patterns in Primates and Man. That title is the name of a book published by the British Royal Society and the British Academy (the spelling of "behaviour" should have clued you in to its British origin) to which C&T contributed a paper. It was edited by John Maynard Smith, widely considered one of the greatest evolutionary biologists who have ever lived. Here is a list of the publications of C&T, who also run the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at UCSB. As you can see, they have a very extensive publication record in eminent scientific journals of original research in evolutionary psychology. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

Tyler DiPietro,

That is because rigorous scientific models do not, to my knowledge, exist in evo-psych. All I have read are explanations about how evolution works and deductions from that of how our mind should work.

Then the problem is your lack of reading. You might want to consult the Center for Evolutionary Psychology website, which contains a good EP primer and extensive links to other resources, including primary scientific literature. The names I listed in my previous post to you are among the leading scientists working in EP, and if you don't even know who they are or anything about their published work you're really not in a position to criticize the field.

The names I listed in my previous post to you are among the leading scientists working in EP, and if you don't even know who they are or anything about their published work you're really not in a position to criticize the field.

That is quite a bit of material to digest, so I'll retract my earlier comment about evo-psych in general. However, when specifically talking about a biological basis of religion via the principles laid out by evo-psych, I have read many such explanations and found them unconvincing. For instance, the idea of religion as a form of social cohesion doesn't really explain why we would need such a massive waste of time simply to enforce social bonds, or why those beliefs would have to be supernatural (as is usually the case with religion). My own position is that religion is likely a misfiring byproduct of our general capabilities of pattern recognition and our propensity to infer volitional agency (which probably does have some sort of evolutionary basis).

You're not "accepting the null hypothesis." You're claiming that an empirical, factual assertion should be believed in the absence of evidence that it is true

No.

Cosmides and Tooby have never written anything called Evolution of Social Behaviour Patterns in Primates and Man. That title is the name of a book published by the British Royal Society and the British Academy (the spelling of "behaviour" should have clued you in to its British origin) to which C&T contributed a paper.

Fine. the actual paper was called "Friendship and the Banker's Paradox" -- that's hardly the point. Read the paper and see how data-free it is. It really is just philosophizing.

Here is a list of the publications of C&T, who also run the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at UCSB. As you can see, they have a very extensive publication record in eminent scientific journals

Well...not really "eminent scientific journals", if you mean high impact-factor ones. And given the fact that they've been publishing since 1981, it really isn't all that "extensive" either. But that's not really the point. It's the emptiness of the content. Take their "Cytoplasmic Inheritance and Intragenomic Conflict" for example -- there's no data, and it really isn't particularly deep theoretically (there's no math). What's the point?

Jonathan Badger,

No.

You SAID "that's what one *ought* to believe until there is evidence against it." That statement advocates believing in an empirical, factual claim in the absence of evidence that it is true. You're being completely irrational.

Fine. the actual paper was called "Friendship and the Banker's Paradox" -- that's hardly the point. Read the paper and see how data-free it is. It really is just philosophizing.

My point in pointing out your confusion between papers, books and authors is that it illustrates you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And you're wrong even about the contents of that one paper, which describes a hypothesis about altruism based on a large body of observational and experimental data. You might have known this if you had bothered to look at the paper's extensive references.

Well...not really "eminent scientific journals",

Yes, really. Eminent scientific journals. Journals such as Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Trends in Cognitive Sciences

It's the emptiness of the content. Take their "Cytoplasmic Inheritance and Intragenomic Conflict" for example -- there's no data, and it really isn't particularly deep theoretically (there's no math).

More nonsense. Did you even read the paper's abstract, let alone any further?

Tyler,

Perhaps there is some confusion over the sense in which religion may be adaptive. I agree that a number of unconvincing adaptationist explanations have been offered. I think this piece by Steven Pinker provides a good explanation of the sense in which religion may be adaptive, which he summarizes in the final paragraph:

Religion has obvious practical effects for producers. When it comes to the consumers, there are possible emotional adaptations in our desire for health, love and success, possible cognitive adaptations in our intuitive psychology, and many aspects of our experience that seem to provide evidence for souls. Put these together and you get an appeal to a mysterious world of souls to bring about our fondest wishes.

And you're wrong even about the contents of that one paper, which describes a hypothesis about altruism based on a large body of observational and experimental data

There have been indeed serious studies about altruism that have used observational and experimental data. The authors cited several such studies. But the paper itself was not one of those studies. The authors neither collected data to make their model nor tested their model on existing data.

More nonsense. Did you even read the paper's abstract, let alone any further?

I read the whole thing. There was no new data presented nor equations derived. It was just as content-free as the other one.

Jason #35: There are obvious benefits to being able to rationally relate causes and effects

Rationality in a purely survival context is highly overrated. Reflex and instinct are often better. I read a recent article (forget where) dealing with the speed at which various parts of our brain become aware of different stimuli and the regions responsible for rational thought are always the last to know.

It's a virtual certainty that tortoises possess no rational ability or concept of cause and effect and yet they live almost twice as long as humans. I'd wager that humans will not be around anywhere near as long as tortoises have, so the benefits of rationality aren't all that obvious in an strictly "evolutionary" or "fitness" sense.

"If I don't collect more food before winter I will starve."

Poor example. (Squirrels, chipmuks, pikas etc)

The current trend toward hyper-rationality is a fad and will fizzle out when it's ultimate statements hit home emotionally.

- There is no life after death.
- All that you know will be erased from the universe when you die.

From a purely rational point of view, your consciousness, hopes and dreams are utterly meaningless. The only part of us that matters in survival terms are our sex organs. The only part of us that will remain beyond 100 years is our bones. Our minds themselves will be as gone and forgotten as our first turd.

There is a lot of machismo lately by people who claim to embrace this bitter fact of utter personal irrelevance wholeheartedly, but I suspect that when alone, faced with the fact that they are a meaningless ego that will be unceremoniously snuffed out and quickly forgotten, it will not be such a desirable world view.

I don't know what will replace this silly machismo but it will need to be something more emotionally satisfying.

The current trend toward hyper-rationality is a fad and will fizzle out when it's ultimate statements hit home emotionally.
- There is no life after death.

Belief in "life after death" isn't nearly as widespread as you seem to think it is. See here for an example. Look up other similar polls and you will see similar results.

More on that "life after death" thing, from the World Values Survey.

Do you believe in life after death - percentage of NO:

Argentina (1999) - 36.8
Bangladesh (2002) - 44
Bosnia (2001) - 39.7
Brazil (1997) - 29.3
Chile (2000) - 18.2
Colombia (1998) - 30.3
Dominican Republic (1996) - 27.9
El Salvador (1999) - 16.6
Iceland (1999) - 21.8
India (2001) - 34.5
Japan (2000) - 49.2
Korea (1982) - 47.8
Mexico (2000) - 24.4
Nigeria (2000) - 12.5
Puerto Rico (2001) - 21.8
Russia (1999) - 63.4
Serbia (2001) - 74.8
Singapore (2002) - 25.9
South Africa (2001) - 27.2
Turkey (2001) - 10.3
Uganda (2001) - 15.2
Uruguay (1996) - 54.8
Venezuela (1996) - 38.1
Viet Nam (2001) - 84.2

Doesn't seem to be that important, does it? The only countries where belief in afterlife was overwhelming were Islamic - Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morocco. Also, the high percentages for East Asia should show just how ethnocentric this concern with "life after death" is.

It's the emptiness of the content. Take their "Cytoplasmic Inheritance and Intragenomic Conflict" for example -- there's no data, and it really isn't particularly deep theoretically (there's no math). What's the point?

Might that be because it's a frigging review??

Why pick on this article since it's not even evo psych?

At the very least, Cosmides and Tooby were in the right place at the right time and coined a term for something that is now a burgeoning field of research (particularly in the evolution of eusociality). They might have contributed significantly by suggesting possible avenues of research, but it's hard to tell with reviews. But criticizing researchers who publish a widely-quoted groundbreaking review for 'emptiness of the content' comes off a bit... jealous?

Mr. Badger, if you want to see the data, you're gonna have to pay. $30, actually. Nature has, just this week, published the latest from Tooby, Cosmides, and Lieberman regarding altruism among siblings. The popular news reviews hint at a wealth of data (which they normally don't post, for fear of putting their readership to sleep), so I imagine your thirty bucks would be well-spent. Just think of all that data you can learn from!
Here's the link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/abs/nature05510.html#a1

My apologies... I should've done my research first. In the future, I will address you as Dr. Badger.

Might that be because it's a frigging review??
Why pick on this article since it's not even evo psych?

Well, 1) it wasn't marked as a review, nor in a review journal, therefore judging it as a piece of original research seemed fair 2) It was included in the list of publications on their "Center for Evolutionary Psychology" site 3) The subject directly relates to my own research in the evolution of genomes.

They might have contributed significantly by suggesting possible avenues of research, but it's hard to tell with reviews.

Well, was the "Banker's Paradox" paper also a review? It was clearly EP and yet seemed much the same; many words, no math or tables of data. I'm willing to be pointed to a better paper by C&T. If I see data or serious mathematical derivation of models than I'll admit that I've been unfair.

But criticizing researchers who publish a widely-quoted groundbreaking review for 'emptiness of the content' comes off a bit... jealous?

Oh, yes. The jealousy card. That's pretty much how fans of Harry Potter responded when A.S. Byatt pointed out in the NYT that the Potter books were rather unoriginal rehashes of earlier works. Nobody countered her arguments; they all just assumed that the only reason why one author would criticize the work of another was jealousy.

Nature has, just this week, published the latest from Tooby, Cosmides, and Lieberman regarding altruism among siblings.

Just read this paper at your suggestion. Actually, this is much closer to what I expect out of a scientific paper than what I've seen so far from C&T -- there is development of a model (somewhat sketchy, but that's probably more due to Nature's page limits than anything else) as well as data presented. The data was if the form of surveys which required (I quote from the paper)

"participants to assign a unique rank of disgust from 1 (not disgusting at all) to 50 (extremely disgusting) to eight acts, some of which involved sexual contact with a family member, short of intercourse."

But, still, data, and I suppose it's hard to get more solid data than that when dealing with psychology.

Well, 1) it wasn't marked as a review, nor in a review journal, therefore judging it as a piece of original research seemed fair 2) It was included in the list of publications on their "Center for Evolutionary Psychology" site 3) The subject directly relates to my own research in the evolution of genomes.

And you haven't come across any references to intragenomic conflict before?

J. Theor. Biol. seem somewhat liberal with the classification and formatting of their articles and don't classify them into reviews or not, but that is pretty much what reviews look like. Plus their mission statement is simply: "Publishes theoretical papers which give insight into biological processes.

Oh, yes. The jealousy card. That's pretty much how fans of Harry Potter responded...

If Harry Potter was rehashed material, it doesn't qualify as "groundbreaking". I might be mistaken and Cosmides and Tooby were simply plagiarizing a wealth of earlier articles where the implications of cytoplasmic inheritance to intragenomic conflict were clearly outlined. Do such articles exist?

I suppose "Spandrels of San Marco" was crap as well since it contained no new data?

Doering's attempt to explain depression as an adaptation is flawed, but it doesn't mean the physical and psychological states involved in depression aren't adaptations. Like other physiological adaptations, they aided the survival of our early ancestors in an environment that differed from the one we face today in ways difficult to imagine.

Just as some chemicals shut down the body's responses under conditions of stress, the neurochemicals involed in depression shut down the mind. Motivation ebbs away, and yes, in our world you can end up out on the streets. In the early hominid world, it was different, possibly a mixed blessing. While losing motivation would decrease your chance of success in hunting and gathering, it would also conserve your energy. For instance, if you were a nursing mother, you might choose to sleep instead of go looking for food. Maybe, it so happens, this keeps you close to your baby and makes the small but needed difference that ensures her suvival, thus passing on your genes. If not for the sense of hopelessness that weighed upon you, you'd have gotten up and attempted to find food and ended up dying of exposure.

It's an adaptation that works in some instances, not others. An adaptation like this is unlikely to become the dominant phenotype. This fits what we see of the incidence of depression. Think of the sickle-cell gene, which affords some protection against malaria -- some adaptations are neither wholly beneficial nor entirely destructive. Instead they play the costs against the benefits and win enough of the time to survive as recessive traits.

It's also necessary to consider that depression isn't coded into a single or simple set of genes. It seems a whole symphony of genes needs to be in place to make an individual vulnerable to major depression. Some or many be present, creating complex gradations of temperament.

We tend to take for granted that the social skills which serve us best for today's economy, technology, and society represent the "ideal" human being. In other times, under different conditions, let's say the conditions under which hominids evolved, a little grumpiness might have been an advantage. In all probability, it does take all kinds to make a species.

I think it's clear that Jonathan Badger is a waste of time. He's just parroting ignorant attacks on evolutionary psychology he probably read on some political website. He obviously doesn't have even a cursory knowledge of the nature and methods of EP research or the published literature in the field.

By the way, Robert Trivers, who I mentioned in a previous post and who is generally considered one of the founders of EP for his groundbreaking work in the 1970s on reciprocal altruism, parental investment and parent-offspring relationships was just awarded the 2007 Crafoord Prize for that work by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The Crafoord Prize is the equivalent for bioscience of the Nobel Prize.

Sigh.. Adaption or not, that is the stupid question of the day it seems. Is *English* an adaption? Communication maybe, but that can be done "many" ways, of which English is only one of them. Its quite possible, as any atheist can tell you, to build a structured and stable mental picture of the world *without* religion. Its also possible to have religions that are so wildly dissimilar from each other as to make comparisons beyond, "It provided someone with an explanation for the world and a stable framework to work from.", almost completely meaningless. You might as well try to argue that while English isn't adaptive, European "syntax" is, while completely ignoring asiatic, african and australian aboriginal syntaxes, none of which have a damn thing to do with European languages and how they are structured. In point of fact, direct translation between most of them is an "approximation", since even *how* one thinks when employing them differs drastically. So, language = adaptation, syntax = only in the sense that you need that to form a language, but not specifically, English = not adaptive in the sense of *biological* causes. By the same standard, belief = adaptive, religion = only because its one "class" of belief, any specific religion = Not an adaption.

Seems to me this is a far more reasonable hierarchy of where things stand.

Trying to claim that religion itself "is" an adaption is something for which there is no evidence, contradicts a number of known factors about how the brain seems to work (at least if you read "everything on the subject, instead of just your own research, which is sadly what causes some people to persue silly avenues), and *is* over reaching in that respect imho. But, that's how the fringes of the sciences always work. Someone is always over reaching the limits of what "is" possible, because its not actually possible to say where the line actually exists **before hand**, and then narrowing the definitions to what "can" work. If you do the opposite, and only look for things that you are certain will work, then you are a corporate researcher doing "applied science", and you better go back to making the next iPod, because its damn unlikely you will be the one coming up with huge breakthroughs in understanding. To learn anything you have to ask questions about what you *don't* know, not what you are 99.9% certain already will prove correct.

windy: And you haven't come across any references to intragenomic conflict before?

Sure I have; the processes of feminization and male killing of insects by their endosymbiont Wolbachia are classic examples. Several people I've worked with at TIGR were instrumental in sequencing Wolbachia and thus furthered the study of intragenomic conflict in a very real sense. Not sure what that has to do with C&T's paper though. C&T didn't discover the phenomenon and even you agree that they didn't discuss anything new (you classified it as a review, and I suppose I agree)

Jason: By the way, Robert Trivers, who I mentioned in a previous post and who is generally considered one of the founders of EP for his groundbreaking work in the 1970s on reciprocal altruism, parental investment and parent-offspring relationships

Trivers' work, like that of George Williams or John Maynard Smith, is not EP but solid mathematical theoretical genetics. EP may claim descent from the work of such people, and some of them may even endorse EP, but that's not the same thing. You won't find Trivers asking people to rate the subjective disgustingness of feeling up their sister numerically.

Jason: just awarded the 2007 Crafoord Prize for that work by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The Crafoord Prize is the equivalent for bioscience of the Nobel Prize.

Glad you feel that way about the prestige of the Crafoord. I worked with and published two papers with the 2003 winner, Carl Woese.

Trivers' work, like that of George Williams or John Maynard Smith, is not EP but solid mathematical theoretical genetics. EP may claim descent from the work of such people, and some of them may even endorse EP, but that's not the same thing.

This is just utter nonsense. Trivers' work on reciprocal altruism and parental investment is quintessential evolutionary psychology, and is the foundation of a vast body of subsequent work by evolutionary psychologists on the evolutionary basis of sexual, social and parenting behavior in human beings and other species, including much of the work of Cosmides and Tooby. Do you even know what Trivers' theories of reciprocal altruism and parental investment are? They're not "mathematical theoretical genetics," they're theories that explain various aspects of human and animal behavior in terms of the mechanisms and processes of evolutionary biology.

windy: And you haven't come across any references to intragenomic conflict before?
Sure I have; the processes of feminization and male killing of insects by their endosymbiont Wolbachia are classic examples. Several people I've worked with at TIGR were instrumental in sequencing Wolbachia and thus furthered the study of intragenomic conflict in a very real sense. Not sure what that has to do with C&T's paper though.

For starters, several articles in the field that refer to C&T. Maybe they do it out of pity.

C&T didn't discover the phenomenon and even you agree that they didn't discuss anything new (you classified it as a review, and I suppose I agree)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the value of review articles.

Just when PZ's patience for Chopra-woo runs out, I get word that he's coming to Austin. I guess we'll be keepin' it even weirder next weekend.

Is it really that hard to believe that establishing a common bond among monkeys (i.e. religion) would make them more resistant to outside challenges?

It's beyond simple to make claims about why religion might be adaptive... it helps monkeys to move on when other monkeys die (i.e. makes intense emotional bonds more practical), and it provides a decentralized form of government, essentially allowing much larger groups of monkeys to consider themselves part of an in-group. Establishing a community is a very big deal for survival.. how could you argue that religion doesn't do that, at least on a micro scale?

The fact that some monkeys kill others because of it isn't really an argument against it being adaptive. You could say the same thing about race, but racial differences are (or at least, were) clearly adaptive.

Is it really that hard to believe that establishing a common bond among monkeys (i.e. religion) would make them more resistant to outside challenges?

The question is, if a common bond is adaptive, why wouldn't monkeys just evolve a bonding emotion rather than religion to get that benefit? See the piece by Pinker I linked to earlier.

When you are talking about religion, do you mean a belief in the supernatural? or some specific religious tradition?

Frequently what is identified as a culture's religion is more a projection of 19th century protestant academic work than any essential element of human cultures. Look at the great construct we call 'Hinduism', or the elaborate codes of Confucius... These things while counted as 'religion' generally speaking, might be said to serve a variety of purposes not usually tied to modern Protestant Christianity.

If you are looking for an evolutionary reason for religion, you will need a pretty impressive polythetic definition to account for all the variation of function and application within just Christianity, forget aboriginal religions, the religions of asia, new religious movements, etc...

- All that you know will be erased from the universe when you die.

Publish or perish :-)

John B: I think most who have looked into the matter would say that Confucianism is a philosophical school, not a religion.

Keith Douglas,

Whether Confucianism counts as religion or not is part of the definitional issue. The ethics involved in neo-confucian practice include the proper interaction with spiritual beings as an extension of family/community hierarchies.

The issue of what distinction between ethnic traditions, philosophical schools, religions and superstitions is non-trivial in some times and places. I was just curious what the parameters for this particular discussion are.

The earlier quote from Pinker mentions only personal desires for health, etc... and belief in a soul.

Of course, the craziest thing of all is expecting better from the Huffpo, a site founded by a woman who is an ordained minister in the Movement for Spiritual Inner Awareness (John-Roger is their leader, who they believe is the Preceptor Consciousness, and who outranks Jesus but will, unlike Jesus, attend dinner parties if a spare man is required).

Also, their social bookmarking system is called Huffit. Think about the message that's sending...

- All that you know will be erased from the universe when you die.

Publish or perish :-)