Best books about evolutionary psychology according to redditors
We found 121 Reddit comments discussing the best books about evolutionary psychology. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 121 Reddit comments discussing the best books about evolutionary psychology. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
You would like the book Other Minds. It's about Cephalopod psychology and the beginning of the book depicts their evolution.
Edit: Link for the lazy
Read all of his books.
The Demon Haunted World
Cosmos
Varieties of the Scientific Experience
Pale Blue Dot
The Dragons of Eden
Billions and Billions
His novel:
Contact
Thanks!
>I think the coolest thing I’ve found is the evolutionary reason why people reject evolution. I haven’t published it yet but, when it comes out, its probably going to cause a minor shit storm.
Please post to reddit when it's published.
In case anyone wants to check out the above mentioned books:
Chimpanzee Politics by Frans de Waal
The Paleolithic Prescription by Boyd and Eaton
Exiles from Eden by Glantz and Pearce
Primates in the Classroom by Gary Bernhard
Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Miller and Kanzawa
Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan
> That probably explains why politics only exists in the minds of Humans and nowhere else, right?
http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfPack.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q664cyqDc8
https://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562
http://understanddolphins.tripod.com/dolphinsocializationbehavior.html
Ms. Grandin actually lives down the road from me, very interesting lady. She has two good books out too:
http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Make-Us-Human-Creating/dp/0151014892/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251862720&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Translation-Mysteries-Autism-Behavior/dp/0156031442/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251862720&sr=8-5
She is one of the greatest animal advocates out there - her attitude is, "People eat meat. Can't be helped. If people are going to continue to eat meat, I should help those animals have a good life and die humanely. If I don't help them for whatever reason (If I thought that people should all be vegetarians, and animal slaughter should be outlawed a la PETA) then that's an unreasonable position and will never happen, and animals would still going to be getting raised and killed inhumanely. So, it sucks that animals have to die, but they wouldn't be alive in the first place if we weren't raising them to eat them - so let's do it right."
She also puts all or most of her humane slaughterhouse designs into the public domain so as many people can use them as possible.
I am an evolutionary anthropologist and it's true, human diversity is definitely biological BUT the delineations of one race from another i.e. black v. white v. latinx are impossible to define biologically. This is not the same as sex, as even when there are intersex exceptions to the general rule, the vast majority of points cluster within two categories and it does not make statistical sense to add a third. I recommend The Race Myth
I wrote a quick script to search the full text of HPMOR and return everything italicized and in title case, which I think got most of the books mentioned in the text:
Book title|Author|Mentioned in chapter(s)|Links|Notes
:---|:---|:---|:---|:---
Encyclopaedia Britannica| |7|Wikipedia|Encyclopaedia
Financial Times| |7|Wikipedia|Newspaper
The Feynman Lectures on Physics|Richard P. Feynman|8|Wikipedia|Full text is available online here
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases|Amos Tversky|8|Amazon|
Language in Thought and Action|S.I. Hayakawa|8|Amazon Wikipedia |
Influence: Science and Practice|Robert B. Cialdini|8|Wikipedia|Textbook. See also Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making|Reid Hastie and Robyn Dawes|8|Amazon |Textbook
Godel, Escher, Bach|Douglas Hofstadter|8, 22|Amazon Wikipedia|
A Step Farther Out|Jerry Pournelle|8|Amazon|
The Lord of the Rings|J.R.R. Tolkien|17|Wikipedia|
Atlas Shrugged|Ayn Rand|20, 98|Wikipedia|
Chimpanzee Politics|Frans de Waal|24|Amazon|
Thinking Physics: Understandable Practical Reality|Lewis Carroll Epstein|35, 102|Amazon|
Second Foundation|Isaac Asimov|86|Wikipedia|Third novel in the Foundation Series
Childcraft: A Guide For Parents| |91|Amazon|Not useful if your child has a mysterious dark side
Also, this probably isn't technically what the OP was asking, but since the script returned fictional titles along with real ones, I went ahead and included them too:
Book title|Mentioned in chapter(s)
:---|:---
The Quibbler|6, 27, 38, 63, 72, 86
Hogwarts: A History|8, 73, 79
Modern Magical History|8
Magical Theory|16
Intermediate Potion Making|17
Occlumency: The Hidden Arte|21
Daily Prophet|22, 25, 26, 27, 35, 38, 53, 69, 77, 84, 86, 108
Magical Mnemonics|29
The Skeptical Wizard|29
Vegetable Cunning|48
Beauxbatons: A History|63
Moste Potente Potions|78
Toronto Magical Tribune|86
New Zealand Spellcrafter's Diurnal Notice|86
American Mage|86
As others mentioned, TVTropes has a virtually-exhaustive list of allusions to other works, which includes books that aren't explicitly named in the text, like Ender's Game
My partner wrote a very similar piece about how unscientifically most people (and many scientists) think about animal intelligence. I also recommend the book Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? to anyone interested in this topic.
Yes, according to Lynn’s latest book, psychopathic personality explains the other half that IQ does not explain
We have a very good understanding of their intelligence. They are probably some of the most well studied species in terms of behaviour and cognitive abilities on this planet. In ELI5/TLDR* most researchers would characterize their intelligence of being equivalent to a 2-3 year old human child. Just a short list of things that characterize these species:
...
I suppose another way of looking at this is what do we have that they lack. What makes humans unique?
We know of some factors that contributed to our awareness and unique intelligence as compared to other living species. It is important to know that this is a very active area of study in many different disciplines (psychology, biology, animal behaviour, psychiatry, physiology, anthropology, neurology, linguistics, genetics, archeology...).
These two traits, shared intentionality and cumulative culture, led to the development of other aspects of our being which are unique (e.g language). Everything else that we can do is just a happy by-product of these two traits: being able to go to the moon, or build a super dam, or create art, or think in the abstract, maths, industrial agriculture...Those things are by-products of our level of cognition. Our uniqueness is derived from shared intentionality and cumulative culture plus a couple of random physical traits that we were lucky enough to inherit from our distant ancestors - a big brain, bipedalism, and opposable thumbs. We are not the only species with a large brain-to-body ratio, we are not the only bipedal species, and we are certainly not the only species with opposable thumbs - these are physical characteristics that we inherited from our distant primate ancestors. These traits built the foundation for what was to come.
Whatever the pressure around 40,000-50,000 years ago we notice a significant shift in the archeological record. All of a sudden humans are making cave art, our hunting tools are changing rapidly, we began to engage in long distant trade, we made jewellery and we even had symbolic figures - perhaps the seeds of language. This is known as the period of behavioural modernity. Not only did these humans look like us, they acted like us too. Its hypothesized that an infant from this time could be raised in a modern context with little to no intellectual deficit...we wouldn't be able to pick them out of a crowd. Humans haven't gotten more intelligent over time. It is hypothesized that a human from 50,000 years ago is anatomically and behaviourally modern.
So, if we aren't any smarter - why do we have cell phones and galaxy print jeggings and people didn't way back then? Increasing complexity - we know more than people in the past because we've built upon what they've learned. Humans have always been smart, and our great benefit is that we build on other people's discoveries. Someone figured out how to domesticate plants, someone figured out how to sew cloth, someone figured out how to weave materials, someone figured out synthetic materials and dyes, someone put it all together in those jeggings. We just build on what other people have found out. This is cumulative culture in action. Humans today are not more intelligent than humans living 50,000 years ago - we both have the same potential. The difference between us and them is we have a wealth of shared knowledge to draw upon, and they did not. Humans 5000 years from now could be asking the very same question..."Why didn't they invent warp travel, its so easy!"...well we don't have the wealth of another 5000 years of experience and scientific study to draw upon. We only have what our ancestors gave us. As more and more knowledge is accumulated we should in theory progress faster and faster.
Some interesting books on the subject:
Age of Empathy
Our inner ape
Moral lives of animals
Affective neuroscience
Mothers and others
Other mammals have been evolving for as long as we have, as has brain function. I'm reading a really interesting book on animal intelligence, by Franz DeWahl, "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are"
The answer seems to be, not until we gave up expecting to measure animal intelligence from a human POV, and instead started looking at the world from the given species' POV.
Turns out, animals are just as smart as we are when researchers stop expecting, for instance, chimpanzees to pass a facial recognition test--for human faces instead of chimpanzee faces.
The bias? Thinking that human faces are so "distinct from one another" so any other species should be able to recognize human individuals, right? Turns out, wrong!
Chimps recognize their own species' faces every bit as easily as we recognize other humans'.
And even then, think how often humans have tried to claim that "all Asians look alike" or "all Africans look alike" or "all Europeans look alike." No, they've just been "othered" the same way other species' individuals are "othered,"--other species "other" us, as well.
So, yes, it's obvious that adult animals that live around humans recognize when that human is a baby and act accordingly. After all, they've been raising their own young all those millions of years, too.
Sarcasm and scientific articles are a terrible mix. It supercharges whatever biases the author already has, while making them take more hard-line stances on claims than they often should.
I get that this article is really entertainment, but if anyone wants a fair criticism (that is still effective at shutting down some of Peterson's arguments) take a look at Sense & Nonsense by Laland & Brown.
<300 page book that is pretty accessible and summarizes the current state of knowledge on what parts of human behaviour are evolved vs dependent on environment.
TBH I wish everyone who wants to discuss this topic would read it, as some science is bunk, but some is definitely not. And the topic is very controversial, so there are TONs of hit/smear pieces out there on both sides.
If you're curious to find out why they live such short lifespans and learn more about their intelligence, I highly recommend "Other Minds" by Peter Godfrey-Smith: https://www.amazon.com/Other-Minds-Octopus-Origins-Consciousness/dp/0374227764 The subtitle is "The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness." Very readable and informative.
Octopus minds are basically as close as we'll get to encountering alien intelligence.
Frans de Waal's books on the chimps he studied at the same facility, such as Chimpanzee Politics, are incredibly eye-opening from a r/likeus perspective.
Mama was one of the chimps in the group he researched. In her day, she was one formidable primate. She was even something of a kingmaker—her recognition of a would-be alpha male would help swing all the adult females over to that chimp's side.
It's really sad to hear about her death after reading two de Waal books where she features so prominently!
If you're into original research, you should also check out (lots of PDFs)
The author is Temple Grandin - she has written a number of books circling the area of autism. I believe this is the one I am thinking of.
Det er et fascinerende eksempel!
Jeg er utrolig inspireret af den canadiske psykolog Keith Stanovich, som er en af de førende forskere inden for det specifikke felt i psykologien.
Den bedste og mest tilgængelig bog er "The Robots Rebellion" Som jeg ikke kan anbefale nok. Men, den handler om mange flere ting end bare rationalitet og intelligens.
Han har også skrevet "Rationality and the Reflective Mind" som specifikt handler om rationalitet og intelligens. Den er en lille smule fagtung, og det er svært for mig at vurdere, hvor svær den er for lægmand. Men du er meget velkommen til at skrive til mig og spørge om enkeltdele, hvis du giver dig i kast med den,
Endelig har Stanovich, sammen med en række kolleger, skrevet en bog om rationalitet som et målbart parameter, hvor de forsøger at opstille en gennemgående skala for rationalitet på linje med de klassiske IQ tests. "The rationality quotient" Jeg har ikke læst den, men den er allerøverst på min læseliste.
Wow! Great info! I read this book called “Other Minds”
(https://www.amazon.com/Other-Minds-Octopus-Origins-Consciousness/dp/0374227764) and it suggested that octopuses and cuttlefish use their color as a form of expression, sort of like talking. But in a language specific to the individual. This was based on the non localization of the octopuses “brain” and the lack of continuity in their patterns. Aside from the more primitive communication. This is better described in the book, obviously. Just wanted to pitch in on some already fantastic information, and see if you have any more information to add.
Dragons of Eden, by Carl Sagan, is a FASCINATING look at the evolution of the brain over the past ~billion years. By the end of the book, my mind had been completely blown more times than I dare count.
http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Eden-Speculations-Evolution-Intelligence/dp/0345346297
The book is probably about 25 years old by now, but Sagan's insights are so far ahead of his time that we are still far from catching up.
It depends on what you mean by 'sentient'.
Plants are capable of responding to their environment and to noxious stimuli. There is a sense in which they process information about their environment. But the same can be said of security cameras and thermometers. I don't think it is morally significant.
There is a another sense, which is having a conscious experience of one's environment. It's the difference between conscious and unconscious processing of one's environment, of there being something "it is like" to undergo an experience.
Because we cannot directly the experience the subjectivity of another being, we will never have incontrovertible proof that plants are not conscious in this sense. But we can reason indirectly about it, and make some informed guesses on the basis of observed plant behavior. We can take the experience of pain as an example, since it's the one that comes up most often in these discussions.
Pain has an adaptive function in animal organisms because animal organisms are capable of modulating complex behavior in response to it, and to prioritize the harmful stimuli over the many other kinds of stimuli their are receiving, often from many other sensory modalities.
Plants, by contrast, do not take in information from many different sensory modalities, and there is no evidence that they have a central way of integrating these various modalities into a single experience. There is no evidence they have anything like attention, which they can direct in different ways. They way in which they respond to threats from the environment is more akin to a mousetrap being set off; just as a mousetrap doesn't need to be conscious in order to function, I'd wager that a plant wouldn't really benefit from a conscious experience of pain, because there is no attention and decision-making (in a CNS, for example) that it might inform.
I'd recommend reading Other Minds for a nice account of the origins of consciousness. The author provides some compelling reasons for thinking that a nervous system is really central to its emergence.
I think we need to practice with octopuses. They're a totally alien intelligence, but ask researchers who work with them. They have complex relationships and personalities! They're crazy smart and good at solving puzzles. They're totally alien in that our common ancestor is more than twice as far back as the first dinosaurs! So we've got a handful of the same building blocks, but our minds developed totally independently. But we're both intelligent and sentient. I can't wait until one of them learns a form of language that we can understand (presumably with our help). Can you even imagine? I mean, they're so completely different from us in so many ways...but they still exhibit behaviors that suggest beliefs that are at least relatable to our own, even if they're not the exact same!
This book is next on my reading list I think: https://www.amazon.com/Other-Minds-Octopus-Origins-Consciousness-ebook/dp/B01FQRPIIA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=
> All the evidence currently points to consciousness as a manifestation of our physical brains.
There's definitely evidence of a correlation; that doesn't mean that the two things are identical.
> There's no evidence to support consciousness as anything else.
Well, there is. For Buddhists, of course, the evidence is the testimony of the Buddha-- but that's not going to matter to non-Buddhists. For non-Buddhists, the evidence is the fact of the "hard problem of consciousness." We don't have the slightest idea of how physical states could give rise to qualia, and no way to explain why, if they could, other matter isn't conscious. A good (non-Buddhist) book on this subject is Raymond Tallis's Aping Mankind, which shows some of the problems of physical reductionism.
> If you want to convince me that something is true, you need to show me evidence for it. Simply saying "you can't prove it isn't" won't work. I can say "you're a thief" and you can't prove you aren't. That game isn't worth playing.
I agree. But what I am saying is that we don't know what happens to consciousness when the brain dies, and the notion that it disappears is not necessarily more parsimonious than the notion that it continues on.
Hard to make that argument, both cows and humans are 100% sentient. You're looking for sapience, which is humanlike intelligence such as wisdom.
However, it's hard to even say definitively that cows are not sapient. There's so much evidence of animal intelligence on a sliding scale with humans at one end of the scale, and you're talking as if humans were somehow independent of the scale.
If you're interested in this topic, I highly recommend the book Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?
It's an incredibly deep investigation into the nature of animal intelligence and the controversy surrounding the science of it. It changed the way I see animals.
I made up the names and situation there, but you may find Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes to be an interesting and relevant read.
The book was Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are by Frans de Waal
You shouldn’t think it from the title of the book, but it’s actually a pretty objective look at the way delusions/distortion in the human brain (mainly re: idea of human exceptionalism) interfere with the way people interpret animal behavior.
I felt like the book was an attempt to “right size” the distorted ways people view animals.
The reference to dogs/cats hijacking the neural pathway for parenting was a really small reference in the book so I don’t want to mislead but overall I really enjoyed this book and was going around saying “did you know...” for days lol.
I'll recommend some books that I'm reading right now
Thinking, fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman
Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan
Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan
Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman by Richard Feynman
Why Nations Fail by Robinson and Acemoglu
In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations
The Terrorist Prince: The Life and Death of Murtaza Bhutto
It seems likely that it would. I think so for a few reasons, which I will discuss in greater detail below.
Consider a squirrel. It makes some weird noises but doesn't have a language on par with anything like human language. When I put out a bird feeder with bird seed, some squirrel eventually figures out how to get the bird seed from the feeder. This requires the squirrel to have an understanding of its goal and the ability to come up with a plan for reaching its goal. I've recently read a book called Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans de Waal. In this book, he goes over the results of various experiments into animal intelligence. One of these experiments involves placing a piece of food into a suspended tube that has a trap in it. A chimpanzee can look at this tube and immediately figure out which end to put a stick in to get the food out without it falling into the trap. But when this experiment was tried with some species of monkey, the monkeys would have to experiment until they got it right. This showed that the chimpanzee had a greater ability to work things out in its mind. Another experiment with chimpanzees involved hiding pieces of food with only one chimpanzee as a witness to where the food was hidden. Instead of going straight to the hidden food, which would alert other chimpanzees as to where it was, the chimpanzee would wait until it could uncover the food in secret. Notably, this same experiment was done with two different chimpanzees in the same compound years apart. It was first done with a male chimpanzee, and he was still around when it was done years later with a female chimpanzee. The male chimpanzee noticed the behavior of the female chimpanzee, and he realized that she was acting the same way he had acted when he was the only one who knew where an apple had been hidden. So, he kept an eye on her, and when she uncovered the apple she had seen hidden, he came and took it from her.
I am now reading Unbound: How Eight Technologies Made Us Human, Transformed Society, and Brought Our World to the Brink by Richard Currier. He covers these technologies in chronological order, and he gets to language in the 5th chapter, "The Technology of Symbolic Communication." The first four chapters are:
I would argue that all of these require some degree of consciousness. To make tools, weapons, clothing or shelter before using them requires some idea of what they are to be used for and how to make them. Following a tradition requires some consciousness that others are doing the same thing. Controlling fire without consciousness would be a very risky business. Fire can easily get out of control if someone isn't keeping a conscious watch over it.
Once human beings evolved symbolic communication, they started forming larger groups, they started having tribal identities, and they started spreading around the world more rapidly. Currier maintains that it was symbolic communication that gave homo sapiens sapiens the edge over homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Since the use of language allowed homo sapiens sapiens to form large armies, they began to wipe out other human species and take over the world. Given what the use of language allowed modern humans to do, it looks like this wasn't around for a long period of earlier human evolution. Yet the human technologies that predate symbolic communication provide good evidence that humans already possessed consciousness.
Let's now turn to some things that contemporary human beings do. They play sports, ride bikes, dance to music, and play video games. It is possible for people to engage in these activities without verbalizing what they are doing. In fact, continually verbalizing what we do is sometimes a way of slowing it down or making it more difficult. For example, when I'm keeping my balance while riding a bike, I have to be conscious of my body's position. But I'm not thinking about it verbally. The main value of symbolic communication is that I can share ideas with other people much more easily than I could without it. It also allows me to think about ideas I might not think of otherwise, such as God or communism. So, I expect that consciousness came first, then the need to communicate with others led to the development of language. Language helped us refine our thinking, but it was not what was responsible for making thinking or consciousness possible.
Clearly that's not what I said. Your mind is made up, and you're willing to bend my words to prove your point. Go pick up a couple of evolutionary psychology textbooks, read them, feel stupid, and then come back to apologize. Here's a really good one to start out with, it got me started in this whole thing: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Science-Mind-Edition/dp/020501562X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1334485093&amp;sr=8-1
It doesn't have to be raised this inhumanely though. Temple Grandin is an animal behavior specialist. She's single-handedly revolutionized the humane treatment of slaughter animals in the United States. Her book animals in translation has chapters on each of the industries she has worked with. YOU should check out the chapter on chickens. http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Translation-Mysteries-Behavior-Harvest/dp/0156031442
The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. It's one of the best books I've read about the topic and I've read quite a few. I double majored in psychology and philosophy as an undergrad then went onto grad school for clinical psych, so I'm very familiar with all the literature on the subject. The Moral Animal is the most accurate and easy-to-understand book I can think of.
Dragons of Eden was a real eye opener for me.
Il parlait de ce livre. C'est un concentré de racisme sous couvert 'scientifique'.
https://www.amazon.com/Other-Minds-Octopus-Origins-Consciousness/dp/0374227764
If you're open to other theoretical approaches, Predictably Irrational and Thinking Fast and Slow will blow your mind
It's sort of like some people stole and made a fortune off of it, and their descendents talk about markets are fair and wealth is always fairly distributed and let's just let capitalism do it's job...but we didnt' start with a level playing field, the hsitory of hominids has been self-serving backstabbing for, well...millions of years.
Great topic-related book, Chimpanzee Politics. Includes interesting things like:
It's broken because you don't vote. Young men either participate in (source) or fantasize about coalitional violence. It's an evolved mechanism. That's all it is. You have a tendency to violence (as do all young men), and in your case, you've allowed it to override rationality. It's that simple and instinctual. You aren't actually going to rebel. That's just a violent fantasy. You aren't going to vote, either. So, you are only doing two things: wasting your time and the time of all the people who read or listen to what you think, and making your country worse by not exercising the political influence you do have toward a goal you are actually right on.
Don't trust everything you read online, either. Books are still generally your best bet, because people who might not know what they're talking about can't edit them while you're reading them.
Obviously I'm not saying all books are better than all internets, but find some credible ones and you're much better off.
I'm not a scientist by training, but I can suggest a few books that will provide a pretty good counterbalance to what your mom will be teaching you. (A few of them have quasi-religious-sounding titles, too, so if she happened to find them lying around she might not get too angry.)
The Chosen Species: The Long March of Human Evolution
The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
A Brief History of Time
I can recommend more if you'd like. These ones are pretty broad surveys of the topics of (in order) evolution, more evolution, the role of science in society, and the physical nature of the universe. If you're homeschooled, I'm assuming high school-level? None of these books is technical - they're all 'popular science', intended to explain broad concepts to non-scientists. They're very, highly interesting, though, and it's easy to find recommended reading lists once you discover some specific topics that interest you. The Chosen Species itself has a lengthy and detailed bibliography and recommended reading section at the end.
I hope I've been able to help! Good luck!
It's hard. Food is a bonding experience for humans now. Desmond Morris talks about this quite a bit in The Human Zoo. We have strong rituals around our meal times.
Try The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan. It doesn't touch much on your specific question but it talks about how the mind works. I'm currently reading it and highly recommend it.
Nice. I wonder where I can find a pirated copy. I wanna see how deep this rabbit hole goes
https://www.amazon.com/dp/020501562X
I'm not super wide-read on the subject or anything. There do seem to be more books on this subject coming out though. E.g. Here is an interview with the author of another one:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/01/joshua_greene_o.html
Maybe that will be of some interest. Another recent book (which I read, unlike Greene's) is Michael Tomasello's Natural History of Human Morality which is about the evolution of morality (I think this is probably a key component of understanding morality). It was pretty good, although very expensive for some reason (like £25 in the UK).
Personally though I don't think anyone has cracked this nut yet.
As /u/HideousRabbit notes, maybe nothing.
What does happen is that people often put forth such positions and take them to be obvious and they're not only not obvious, but they're obviously bad.
Apart from those problems, the proposal you're giving needs to be fleshed out significantly. What do you mean by "just a human construct"? What tie is that supposed to have to evolutionary theory? There's many ways you can go here. Some people want to use this line of reasoning to deny that there truly is anything such as morality, and instead we just have these things we call moral systems around but they don't have any true force. I don't have a lot of sympathy for these positions personally.
If you're interested in the relation between morality and evolutionary theory the psychologist Michael Tomasello has a new book called A Natural History of Human Morality which gives an evolutionary history of morality. It shares a number of affinities with philosophical theories of morality, including of constructivists like Stephen Darwall, Christine Korsgaard and David Gauthier.
You might dig this book - I read it this summer and found it enthralling.
Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity
Read Other Minds by Peter Godfrey for more cool cephalopod insight, so cool.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Other-Minds-Octopus-Origins-Consciousness/dp/0374227764
The Moral Animal by Robert Write is a classic book that does a great job describing how many of our morals are built-in and were developed for evolutionary reasons.
just curious: If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, that means that you believe evolution is the mechanism or means through which God reveals his creation, right? Can you believe that He intervenes in your life personally? or in historical events? Or controls the weather?
Let me ask you this: What does understanding evolution teach you about the Almighty and His plan for your life? Is he a loving, caring 'father' ? Or a cold, uncaring bitch? How could you watch an Attenborough BBC special without experiencing cognitive dissonance. Rape, infanticide, cannibalism - all these things are perfectly 'natural' and happen everyday as part of normal animal behaviors. Are we to believe all animals are under the power of 'sin' in a 'fallen' world controlled by Satan? In a 'perfect' world, would no whale be a killer? Would sharks eat seaweed instead of fish?
Where do we even get these ideas of right and wrong? I used to think that it was God who created this conscience within us. But now i think that these systems of thought, taught to us by our parents and teachers, which condition us to be appalled at such behaviors, evolved naturally long,long ago out of the desires of our ancestors to live peaceful lives.
Dawkins summed it up: we would never want to live in a society founded on 'Darwinian' principles. It would have no tolerance for any weakness; only the winners matter. Think Road Warrior here.
I think the whole of human progression has been a long escape from this harsh and uncaring 'dog eat dog' world where 'survival of the fittest' is the law of the jungle. Life in the trees was short and brutal. Banding together,for protection at first, we moved out onto the plains and have co-evolved for millions of years as social animals, living in communities where weaker members have been able to survive and even reproduce; where coalitions of the less powerful have usually been able to control the ambitions of the 'alpha' and keep the tribe peaceful. A peaceful environment with plenty of food leaves lots of free time for doing things like pondering the mysteries of existence and creating new pieces of culture
Fascinating book: Our Inner Ape
Or octopi.
My rebuttal to phrase (B) in your thesis:
>To say that degrees are the reason for a depressed middle class in the States is reductionistic. It's the fallacy of the single cause. If we take this literally, all we need is one other argument for the depression of the middle class to disconfirm this in its entirety. Here's one: the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distributes wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class and contributes to rising inequality, depressing the middle class.
Your response:
>Not bad. But there's a flaw in your logic.
>
>I said that degrees are the underlying reason. Which implies that there may be other reasons above it, but distillation will get you to degrees. To do that, you have to understand how Lean works and do it as a step analysis starting with the abstract problem: depressed middle class income. And I share this as a person who once managed people and was directly connected with Human Resources on multiple occasions.
>
>Why is the middle class depressed? Because middle class people aren't making enough money.
>
>Why aren't people making enough money? Because employers aren't paying high enough wages.
>
>Why aren't employers paying high enough wages? Because wages are fair market and determined based on the role. The role isn't worth paying more.
>
>Why isn't the role worth paying more? Because it's low skill labor.
>
>Why is it low skill labor? Because it doesn't require advanced education.
>
>If you sat in front of an executive and asked that exact set of questions, or at least some derivation thereof, you'd end at up the same conclusion. But wait...it then opens up an obvious contradiction.
>
>If the labor doesn't require advanced education, then why does your job posting require or even desire a college degree?
>
>To which you'll get one of two answers: "It's the company standard policy to require everyone have a college education" (most likely) or "we do it to help weed out applicants".
>
>If it's standard policy to require something that isn't the standard (and it isn't by all statistics available), you are acknowledging, by correlation using the step process above, that this "something" is depressing the middle class.
>
>Your example:
>
>the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distributes wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class and contributes to rising inequality, depressing the middle class.
>
>Is then debunked by the same step process. Why is the upper class able to disproportionately do that? Because middle class people aren't making enough money (which is the first step above, and leads you to...where?
>
>Goods and services and disproportion are a byproduct of the issue, far displaced from the root cause.
I know I shouldn't, but I'll play the "he said, she said" game for just a moment here, as you did say, and I quote, "(B) Degrees are the reason for a depressed middle class in the States". However, this is a bit different than the title, "They are the true underlying cause of the depressed middle class in the States"... so, I digress.
The epistemological claim that a proper step analysis reveals the true causal chain of events in a complex system is a bit specious, although a good step analysis absolutely has its benefits, and your line of reasoning is absolutely correct. However, it is also a literal exercise in repetitive reductionism, as each step could be explained by more than one cause. It causes us to fall prey to the availability heuristic, as well as confirmation bias, to some degree:
All of these services the idea that, in your words, distillation will not always get you to degrees-- distillation will get you to where you want to go with your argument. Despite our best efforts to be rational and unbiased, reasoning is a fickle tool that ultimately evolved in us to convince others (more on this here). As an example, you might have even demonstrated your biased reasoning in the following:
>Your example:
>
>the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distributes wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class and contributes to rising inequality, depressing the middle class.
>
>Is then debunked by the same step process. Why is the upper class able to disproportionately do that? Because middle class people aren't making enough money (which is the first step above, and leads you to...where?
Where in my statement was it said that the upper class is doing this? In a genuine step analysis, shouldn't the next question logically be "why does the flow of goods and services in America disproportionately distribute wealth between the middle class and upper class in favor the upper class?"
*******************
In response to the following:
>If you sat in front of an executive and asked that exact set of questions, or at least some derivation thereof, you'd end at up the same conclusion. But wait...it then opens up an obvious contradiction.
>
>If the labor doesn't require advanced education, then why does your job posting require or even desire a college degree?
>
>To which you'll get one of two answers: "It's the company standard policy to require everyone have a college education" (most likely) or "we do it to help weed out applicants".
>
>If it's standard policy to require something that isn't the standard (and it isn't by all statistics available), you are acknowledging, by correlation using the step process above, that this "something" is depressing the middle class.
For reasons mentioned earlier, I'm not very confident that you and I would come to the same conclusion in a step analysis of the question, "why is the middle class depressed"?. However, let's table that for a moment, and assume that I happen to agree with you. In order to discuss it, I need to know what field or profession you're envisioning in this scenario. I ask because these conversations are absolutely not the case in fields like healthcare, and the differences between the professions you're envisioning versus healthcare might shed light on some of the relevant mechanisms here.
I conclude that college degrees are among one of many reasons the middle class is depressed, but it is yet to be seen how it might be playing the primary driving role that you've proposed.
I used to love watching the big hits as well, but as I've gotten older I have a much harder time with it. I think part of it is when I was younger I didn't realize the gravity of the injuries whereas now I can put myself in the players shoes a lot better.
As to why - we are violent species. Read Chimpanzee Politics. It will explain a lot.
Regarding the number of kids that die playing the sport, did you know that 40k people die each year in in America in car wrecks? That over 90k people die each year in America due to medical mistakes? That means on average 246 people died today due to a medical fuck up and 109 died in a car wreck. But no one mourns them like a football player because they aren't famous or playing a game for a living.
I'm not trying to belittle the impact of the football injuries. I'm just trying to put it in perspective with common non-illness causes of death in this country. I haven't run the numbers but I'm willing to bet the incidence of football related death is much lower than those two categories.
This is the theory about sleep anyway. Lots more science to be done. But this is what I have always heard, remember first reading about the questions of sleep and neural pathways in
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dragons-Eden-Speculations-Intelligence/dp/0345346297
The Robot's Rebellion by Keith Stanovich is a good follow-up to The Selfish Gene. Kind of builds on Dawkin's ideas and is a very interesting read.
Dragons of Eden by Sagan, as well
There has indeed been a lot of work done on evolutionary psychology. It's a field that is often criticized for producing untestable hypotheses and overly simple answers to complex questions, but nonetheless it can give some insight into why people act the way they do.
Here's a couple books to start you out:
The Moral Animal
How the Mind Works
It looks like you have quite a bit of reading to do:
> You mean like free-market capitalism that could work if only there were less regulation? And when that regulation is reduced then the problem shifts to some form of market-intervention elsewhere?
There's a HUGE difference between letting people decide how to regulate their lives, and enforcing strict laws at gun point. Free market doesn't only work, or not, with regulations, free market w/ regulations != free market. That's like me saying, Socialism could work, but only when there are private goods (lawls).
> Is that why it has to be called in every few decades to save Capitalism from the near-constant crises that result from its inherent and unavoidable contradictions? I wouldn't call those "solutions".
Not sure which crises you're referring to, if you're referring to the financial crisis..you mean the planned economy? Save it, the only reason why US isn't listed on there is because technically the Fed is a private company, but let's be honest here... it's pretty much the government's (or shall we say, the gov't is the Fed's? heh). A centralized planned economy is a Socialist concept, granted Marx also did say he favored decentralized, but that's cheating. He might as well said, "Oh yeah, something along the lines of Socialism and Capitalism will work." (Pick a # 1 - 10, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 did I get it?!)
> I agree — Capitalism is quite unnatural.
To an extent, I actually agree with you Socialists in terms of going back to our tribal days without computers and whatnot. Civilization is a dirty concept created by us humans. Personally I'd prefer to go bare in the jungle too, but not everyone will be on board like you and me.
The Human Zoo is an excellent book. Socialism = good if you like swinging on trees, Capitalism = good if you like internet. It all depends on what you want really :)
> Sorry, guess again. And in any case, attacking arbitrary groups of people rather than the argument itself simply does not help you.
Sure, I included arbitrary groups AFTER I attacked the main point, think of it like a "Director's Cut." And for fun, I'll take a guess at what type of person you are.. early 20s, in college, never seen a tax form in their life (besides may be a w-2 in which case even my dog has one of those.. I'd be mildly impressed if you've even seen a 1040 or a w-4).
So not really a strawman, nice try though :)
My 2nd favotite book next to God Delusion: (http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072) It explains organically why we are cursed with a cocept of god in the first place. Dawkins makes mention of Jaynes' theory, and gives a nod to my other 2nd favorite related book by Carl Sagan (http://www.amazon.com/The-Dragons-Eden-Speculations-Intelligence/dp/0345346297)
Our Inner Ape
isso acho que acontece em qualquer lugar. Eu li um livro que falava sobre chimpanzés (https://www.amazon.com.br/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-Among-Apes/dp/0801886562 esse daqui, tem naquele site que começa com lib e termina com gen.io, mas só tem em inglês), e eles têm uma identidade de grupo muito forte, tanto que são bem cruéis com membros de outros grupos (essa parte do livro assusta um pouco se você considerar que nós temos 99% do DNA igual ao deles).
Eu vi um texto na internet falando sobre esse comportamento, chimpanzés formando grupos para exterminar outros chimpanzés de grupos vizinhos. E esse livro confirma isso, mas também mostra um outro lado deles que é bom, tem uns casos de chimpanzés machos (se você ler o livro vai ver que eles são o cúmulo da trogloditagem, sério, nem vou comentar sobre porque é grotesco) que adotam uns filhotes órfãos e tratam eles como se fossem as mães.
Esse mérito de um animal se bom ou ruim soa meio estranho, mas ainda acho válido o comparativo com o homem. Se pegar o caso de como o nazismo surgiu, por exemplo.
O povo alemão do tempo de hitler sabia ler e era muito bem educado, uma "civilização top" do ponto de vista cultural. O país estava numa crise, um ambiente que crie tensão nas pessoas é importante, o que acaba ferindo essa condição de racionalidade que a gente considera intrínseca do ser humano.
O resto se desenrola do mesmo jeito que os chimpanzés, ele criou um 'grupo vizinho' e deu no que deu.
Por isso que se deve ter cautela quando acontecem situações que tentam dividir as pessoas em grupos antagônicos. O resultado disso é barbárie e o outro perde a condição de humano quando esse processo chega no auge. E isso tá presente em diferentes esferas de poder, a divisão em facções criminosas e a maneira cada vez mais violenta que elas se enfrentam também dá pra ser usada como exemplo.
Não sei como resolver esse "problema", mas chamar a atenção pro fato, que essa tendência existe e as consequências de sucumbirmos a ela, acho que é um começo. Claro que tem gente que vai ficar p da vida, principalmente por causa de religião, que não dá pra comparar o homem com o macaco e sei lá o que mais.
Bom, chega. Escrevi demais, mas o livro é bem legal. Eu li ele numa época que tava meio pessimista e acabou me dando novas esperanças.
Faltou uma coisa, não pense que eu me considero "imunizado" desse tipo de comportamento só porque "entendi" isso. Os 99% ainda tão tudo aqui nas minhas células só esperando uma fraquejada.
Things to Buy
http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Years-Hanna-Schissler/dp/0691058202
http://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/039332169X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=1
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214
http://www.amazon.com/Andromeda-Strain-Michael-Crichton/dp/006170315X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1225932164&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Classroom-Evolutionary-Perspective-Childrens/dp/0870236113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589323&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Paleolithic-Prescription-Program-Exercise-Design/dp/0060916354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589224&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Exiles-Eden-Psychotherapy-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0393700739/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589294&amp;sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589183&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/YOU-Updated-Expanded-Insiders-Healthier/dp/0061473677/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1263303625&amp;sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/YOU-Updated-Expanded-Insiders-Healthier/dp/0061473677/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1263303625&amp;sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1297305735&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/New-Sugar-Busters-Cut-Trim/dp/0345469585/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1297305615&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1297305420&amp;sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Skinny-Bastard-Kick-Ass-Getting/product-reviews/0762435402/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=1&amp;sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Rules-Eaters-Michael-Pollan/dp/014311638X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1297305420&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Classroom-Evolutionary-Perspective-Childrens/dp/0870236113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589323&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Exiles-Eden-Psychotherapy-Evolutionary-Perspective/dp/0393700739/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589294&amp;sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Paleolithic-Prescription-Program-Exercise-Design/dp/0060916354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589224&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1261589183&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Strange-Land-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441788386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1258348123&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Plate-Diet-Great-Healthy/dp/1885167717/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266199288&amp;sr=1-13
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-War-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747886/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_9
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Plate-Diet-Great-Healthy/dp/1885167717/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266199288&amp;sr=1-13
http://www.amazon.com/Blindsight-Peter-Watts/dp/0765319640/
http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Years-Hanna-Schissler/dp/0691058202
http://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/039332169X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=1
http://www.amazon.com/Andromeda-Strain-Michael-Crichton/dp/006170315X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1225932164&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Manifesto-Against-Christianity-Judaism/dp/1559708204
http://www.amazon.com/Mayo-Clinic-Family-Health-Book/dp/1603200770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1267299889&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Sculpting-Bible-Men-Revised/dp/1578262380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1298573232&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Mens-Health-Big-Book-Exercises/dp/1605295507
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594866279/ref=asc_df_15948662791442125?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;tag=pg-1583-01-20&amp;linkCode=asn&amp;creative=395093&amp;creativeASIN=1594866279
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0345498461/ref=asc_df_03454984611442018?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;tag=pg-1583-01-20&amp;linkCode=asn&amp;creative=395093&amp;creativeASIN=0345498461
http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Runners-Handbook-13-Week-Walk-Run/dp/1553650875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1298575384&amp;sr=8-1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574581891694514228.html
http://www.amazon.com/Edible-Wild-Plants-Foods-Adventure/dp/1423601505
http://www.amazon.com/Shoppers-Guide-Organic-Food/dp/1857028406/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1308213453&amp;sr=1-16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Portrait_of_the_Artist_as_a_Young_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness_writing
http://entertainment.time.com/2011/08/30/all-time-100-best-nonfiction-books/#fast-food-nation-by-eric-schlosser
http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Strange-Land-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441788386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1258348123&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-apnea/continuous-positive-airway-pressure-cpap-for-obstructive-sleep-apnea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye
http://www.amazon.com/Catch-22-Joseph-Heller/dp/0684833395
http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Strength-2nd-Mark-Rippetoe/dp/0976805421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1253993543&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Aero-Speed-Hyperformance-Jump-Rope/dp/B00017XHO8
http://www.invisibleshoe.com/#ecwid:category=135066&amp;mode=product&amp;product=278983
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe621670756c0575741d&amp;m=fe7215707561047d7315&amp;ls=fde817797d6d037977177974&amp;l=fe9215717260007a70&amp;s=fe2d13707d600478751c72&amp;jb=ffcf14&amp;ju=fe2e167375640d75711576&amp;r=0
http://www.amazon.com/Element-Surprise-Navy-Seals-Vietnam/dp/0804105812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1304634342&amp;sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivor-Eyewitness-Account-Operation/dp/0316067598
http://www.amazon.com/Diving-Bell-Butterfly-Memoir-Death/dp/0375701214/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1312848167&amp;sr=8-1
Political
Iraq Research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tawhid_Wal-Jihad
http://www.ontheissues.org/Drugs.htm#Barack_Obama
Congress Related
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r110query.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/
http://www.issuedictionary.com/Barack_Obama.cgi
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:75:./temp/~r110y7HfAa::
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists
/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
http://allafrica.com/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??
Health & Exercise
Green Tea
http://www.teatrekker.com/store/tea/green/green+-+japan.php
http://www.o-cha.com/brew.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_2080066_steep-loose-leaf-tea.html
http://cooksshophere.com/products/tea/green_tea.htm
http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&amp;dbid=146
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tea
http://blackdragonteabar.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
http://blackdragonteabar.blogspot.com/
https://www.itoen.com/leaf/index.cfm
http://www.maiko.ne.jp/english/
http://www.mellowmonk.com/buyGreenTea.htm
http://www.o-cha.com/home.php
http://www.denstea.com/
http://www.theteaavenue.com/chgrtea.html
http://www.teafrog.com/teas/finum-tea-brewing-basket.html
Chimpanzee Politics is an excellent read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-Myth-Pretend-America/dp/0452286581
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Race-Jefferson-Fish/dp/0786754362
Hi Clint. I'm honoured that you've created a reddit account just to reply to me and despite your snarky tone, I think this could be an interesting discussion!
>I supported my contention of science denialism using pre-established criteria, not by "presenting" any form of evolutionary psychology. I certainly did not present anything, I merely evaluated the quality of a talk.
Not at all, since it's impossible to claim a case of science denialism without presenting the scientific position that is supposedly being denied. Your reference for "What is evolutionary psychology?", the basis for the position you think Watson is unfairly rejecting, is this resource page which describes a very specific form of evo psych - one that is at the very least controversial.
>The fact of a talk being poorly-wrought says nothing at all about the quality of its target, that is fallacious thinking.
I'm not sure what this means or how it applies to anything I've said. If the quality of the target is so low that it doesn't constitute "science", then no science denialism can occur.
>I have never once heard the phrase "Santa Barbara Church of Psychology"; and my background is psychology (University of Illinois, not UCSB or any UC). Perhaps this slur was common in some anti-evolution psychology circles, I would love to see evidence it was a broadly set attitude in the last decade.
The term was popularised by Laland and Brown in their book: "Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour". I've never heard it used by people in "anti-evolutionary psychology circles", as Laland and Brown are both evolutionary psychologists.
It also appears again later in a book chapter by Gray, Heaney and Fairhall, who are all evolutionary psychologists, which was published in the book: "From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology" (a collation of essays written mostly by evolutionary psychologists).
As I mention elsewhere in this thread though, even if we want to say that the specific name isn't popular (I can't exactly cite conversations I've had so I'll concede the point for the sake of argument), we still obviously have to accept that it's referring to one particular approach in evo psych which has caused a schism in the field. That is, I'm sure you're aware that there are broadly two factions within evo psych (the Gray chapter I link to discusses this in more detail but it's a fairly well-discussed issue).
>Not only did I not let it die, I published this greatly expanded version in an edited book volume (13 Reasons to Doubt[1] ). If anyone "tore it apart" that escaped my notice.
It's just that many of your arguments seemed to be willful misrepresentations of what she said and your defence of the claim that she was engaging in "science denialism" seemed to be entirely predicated on the particular form of evo psych that is problematic.
In other words, even if we agree that she didn't do the best job in attacking the pop-psych reports and the bad evo psych in the field, we still have to agree that it exists and it can't be science denialism to reject it.
>Watson herself never said much of anything. She also (as far as I can tell) stopped giving the talk altogether.
I imagine she never said anything as she probably never read your article, can't say for sure though. As for giving the talk again, she did present it a few times after your article so I don't think we should try to find any correlation between the two things there.
>Before you rush to reply, I advise you to at least skim this update. It documents 90 different errors, with supporting citations backing them up and strongly (if I may say) refutes Watson's "it was just pop ev psych" claim.
I did read through it before responding the first time but I feel like most of your arguments are pedantic and detracted heavily from any point you were making. Like the bit about her using the picture of the wrong King Louis. I mean, sure, that's sloppy on her part and if she's getting paid to present then that's something she needs to work harder on but if I were to critique someone's position then I'm not going to include a statement to effect of: "And furthermore, they used the form "its" when they should have used the contraction "it's" and so they were wrong about that too".
In the spirit of constructive discussion though, I'll skip all the points that are more pedantic (and the silly attempts at calling her out for "sexism" and "racism"), and focus on some points which I think deserve response:
>She declared a paper she has not read to be “not science”
To be fair, the reason she "hasn't read it" is because it doesn't exist. It wasn't published, it was just a result of market analysis by the shopping centre. Your complaint is correct in that funding doesn't necessarily discredit a study but I think the charitable interpretation of her position here is that obviously if no study exists, and it was done purely for the shopping centre to publish a short article in the newspaper, then it's not really science as we know it.
>No one believes that just any behavior must be an adaptation. Behaviors and features are chosen for testing when they show coherent function which is not explained by existing understanding.
This is unfair. The problem of hyperadaptationism is so common that it even has it's own phrase "just-so stories". You can suggest that no good scientist does that, and I'd agree (and probably Watson would too), but her talk is specifically about bad science in the field and that certainly does occur.
>The idea that Clark and Hatfield “set out” to establish some evolutionary account could hardly be more mistaken. The purpose of the study was to try to arbitrate between competing theories. They recounted dominant theories of the time, both the evolutionary and the cultural account without praising or disparaging either
You've misunderstood her claim here. The thing taken as a "given" is the idea that men enjoy casual sex more than women and women only do it for babies or status. She then claims that the authors take that assumption behind their findings and try to give it an evolutionary explanation.
The very end of the section of her quote that you present contradicts your interpretation that she's talking about taking the evolutionary account as a given.
>In a presentation condemning the concoction of untestable “just so stories” Watson asked her audience to disregard the findings of a dozen scientific studies across multiple countries and decades in lieu of her ad hoc story about female psychology for which no evidence is given other than a single assault case from the news.
Her claim is that these studies are seriously methodologically flawed. It's not a rejection of scientific evidence when based on that assumption (of course we can argue whether she is right or wrong but scientific evidence isn't infallible and always acceptable regardless of the methodology behind it).
>Her explanation was contradicted by two different papers she cited herself. Guéguen 2011 (see 24:30) found that when propositioned by an attractive male, 57% of women agree to go to their apartment—just the activity Watson said women were too fearful to do (Guéguen, 2011). At point 58 Watson favorably referred to Conley 2011 which also contradicted this point: …perceived danger variables did not predict acceptance of the [sexual offer] for women or for men.
Her argument wasn't that they were fearful, it was that they would face social repercussions and judgement, which seems to be supported by the papers she cites.
I can go into more detail for the rest of your post if you like but these appear to form the main basis for your claims and when we remove all the pointless jabs at her that have no relevance to her points, there's no much left to form a rebuttal against her. I mean, even just reading that section of "sexism" was frankly painful and it ended up reading like those conspiracy theorists who complain about "SJW's" and "political correctness gone mad!"...
>It's easy. Consciousness is a complicated behavior of complicated brains. It really happens, and its a physical effect. All squared. Consciousness is no more of an illusion than a rock is. Its also no more mystical, magical, or platonic than a rock is.
Unfortunately it's not that easy. That might be what Dennett tries to push in his pop-phil books, but there are strong criticism to his view. If there weren't there would be no hard problem of consciousness.
Again Dennett solves it by claiming consciousness simply does not exist and it's some sort of illusion, but that begs the question of what exactly is undergoing the illusion.
Also there are good arguments for the immateriality of thought as well.
...
>They can point a magnetic imager at you head and with some AI interpretation reliably tell what you are thinking about. It's rudimentary, of course, but it works. What is going on in your brain is intelligible and functionally analyzable, in principle. In practice, its slow going but it is happening. You are now going to try to tell me that this is not really consciousness, but some precursor or afteraffect of the real consciouness, because real consciousness is some dualistic nonsense that explains nothing.
What we see with MRIs is not consciousness. It's patterns in the brain and there is a LOT open to interpretation even in light of recent discoveries. In fact recently the famous Libett argument against free will was debunked.
In fact a disappointing truth we are realising now (in spite of regular sensationalized claims) is that we cannot precisely correlate what happens in our brain with what we consciously experience. Given the same perceptual input one’s mental states will vary dramatically depending upon mood and circumstance.
Now this does not necessarily entail any dualism, but it does not bode well for naturalism (and in particular the Dennett's type) either.
A good book on the topic is Raymond Tallis' "Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity". He's a neuroscientist and philosopher (and he's not religious at all, so he's not arguing for a religeous soul) Apparently Dennett was quite miffed by the book too.
..
>You are now going to try to tell me that this is not really consciousness, but some precursor or afteraffect of the real consciouness, because real consciousness is some dualistic nonsense that explains nothing.
That some loaded wording.
First define exactly "dualism". There are many forms of dualism and many of those reject the idea that mind and body are actually separate (substance dualism). One example hylomorphic dualism does not claim the mind is a separate entity of the brain/body even if it has immaterial characteristics (at least rational minds).
Moreover IF dualism explains consciousness better than materialism (which it might), then by definition it's a better model of reality, whether you like it or not. In fact there are advantages in rejecting the purely eliminative naturalist view.
So claiming "dualism explains nothing" is false... as naturalism ultimately also explains nothing as it needs to resort to "brute facts". I would also argue that naturalism is an idea that started failing when actual modern physics came along since it's still rooted in the now superseded rigid mechanistic and deterministic Newtonian picture.
I guess maybe you picked that up from Dennett that all dualism must be useless, but Dennett is a hypocrite whiner when it comes to critics of his view. Frankly Dennett (and some other naturalists) seem to fall in the same sort of "narrow dogmatic view" that they accuse others of doing.
..
>Imagine you draw a line with a equation. It has no dots, it goes on in each direction infinitely. Here is a relation with no relata. The equation and the line both. Now lets intersect several lines, such that they enclose an area. Without referring to any dots, the area emerges as a complex relationship between all the line. Relationships between relationships. Now you could go around and drop in a dot at all the corners, but that gains you nothing. The area is already completely defined. You can cry foul here and say that I have cheated. You can say that I still have relata, but the lines are now the relata. A line establishes a form of location, an anchor, and so the area and the intersect points are the relationships. But then you have proven my point - the term relata and relationship are interchangeable, and choose to define any situation with relata over here and relationship there is completely arbitrary, and thus meaningless.
The equation example does not solve your problem. First lines and points are still abstractions themselves. Second, equations by definitions describe relationships, but these are meaningless if there are no relata that exhibit them. That's how you discriminate between a good model and a bad model in science, in fact.
So either one accepts that there is hard platonism (i.e. relations exist as universals) or one accepts that there must be relata (which then opens several other possibilities).
>Who says that science should be reliable and useful? Utilitarianism is just as arbitrary as any other value system.
But I am not talking ab out utilitatianism. Science does not have to be useful, but it needs certain normative judgments to fuction. if we deny those then we deny science itself.
In fact the idea that "only relations exist" is a forced 'reductio ad absurdum' that one tries to force into the discourse once they realize naturalism basically breaks down.
..
>Well wouldn't that be lovely? A pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. An absolute knowledge of all truth. A unicorn. Nice to have, but is not to be had at any price.
Well maybe it's time we pay that price and ditch naturalism :P
I'm not sure there is an "ethical" way to slaughter. Just more humane.
Temple Grandin made it her career rather than just advocating with words. She's is far from an SJW, just a person with autism who noticed she saw the world in a different view. A view that let her see things in a way that related to how animals see the world.
I read about half of this book she wrote. It explains how she got started and what she does. She's done a Ted Talk, written tons of articles on the treatment of animals and how it should be done, written books about animals and about autism, and works for the industry going around the country and transforming the way every step of an animal's life is handled. Yeah, there's bad places, but there are also lots of great places thanks to her work and what she has done.
Edit to add the [movie](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin_(film) about her.
And sorry if you're on desktop, some of the links are mobile. I'm on my phone.
No particular order:
Blind Descent by James M. Tabor. It is a great book about cave exploration and the race to discover the worlds deepest supercave.
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Are you interested in the universe and how it all happened? This gives some pretty insightful answers.
From Eternity To Here by Sean Carrol. A really interesting view on the nature and concept of time and how it relates to the us and the universe. It can get a bit deep from time to time, but I found it fascinating.
Adventures Among Ants by Mark W. Moffet. It's about ants. Seriously. Ants.
The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Garrard. A first hand account of the ill-fated Scott expedition to the south pole in 1911-1912. Even after reading the book I cannot imagine what those men went through.
Bonus book: The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan. Human intelligence and how it evolved. Some really interesting stuff about the brain and how it works. A very enjoyable read.
> My argument was that minds are turing machines because as far as we know, minds are matter
That's false, my friend. We know nothing of the kind. It is one hypothesis among several, and with less evidence than the other available ones.
> and as far as we know minds are matter because that's what science tells us
False again. 'Science' (as if there was one dogmatic source/authority that spoke to you with a single voice) in fact has no idea what the relationship is of mind to matter. There are thousands of scientists, who issue books which are contradictory to one another. For example Raymond Tallis, a prominent neuro-scientist, argues that mind =/= matter:
https://www.amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652734
So the question of the relationship of the mind to the body is one of the currently unsolved problems, and a central question in philosophy. There are many things which are not matter, such as secondary qualities, and things like numbers.
> In absolutely no way is this circular
The reason it is circular is because in OP, the author omitted one of Kurt Godel's explanations for the Incompleteness Theorem -- the one that said that mind =/= matter -- and I corrected him on that. 4-5 replies later you jump in, and presuppose that mind = matter, oblivious to the fact that this was already discussed and challenged before you ever were in the picture.
100% agree. There is a great book on this.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Zoo-Zoologists-Kodansha/dp/1568361041
> I believe people do act selflessly everyday but I don’t think I makes rational sense to live this way. Why would I ever serve anyone’s ends other than my own
To put it bluntly, this isn't what the word "rational" means. Rationality is about taking the optimal path to a specified goal. It doesn't say anything about what that goal is. And that goal is always subjective and arbitrary, regardless of whether you are rational about achieving it.
So, in economics, they often talk about the rational, profit-maximizing business strategy. But "rational" and "profit-maximizing" are totally different things - maximizing profit is a subjective goal, and there are less and more rational ways to achieve it. I could just as easily talk about the rational cost-minimizing business strategy, which is a different objective that recommends a different path. Or an irrational profit-maximizing strategy that is clearly inferior for that goal.
So I dismiss your implicit claim that you are being more "rational" than an altruist who gives away all his money to the poor, because that's conflating the objective idea of rational decision-making with a subjective goal.
As a result, there's not really much for us to argue about, because it's not clear exactly how you've gotten to your conclusion, besides a misunderstanding of the word rational.
If you want to get into an empirical argument about humans, I think there's plenty of evidence that can change your view.
It's no good to say people who jump on hand grenades or donate blood are "really" selfish because it makes them feel better or something, because you've essentially defined "selfish" to be "anything people do". If you take a stricter, more commonplace definition of selfish like "consistently chooses one's own material benefits at the expense of others'", then no, humans are exceptionally non-selfish among organisms on our planet.
>This was something assumed as a truism in the past, but it is considered false now for no real reason outside of political correctness.
No, its considered false now because its recognized to be a load of crap.
Seriously, this:
>I believe Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid to be fairly scientific classification systems if we go by evolutionary lineage.
That's some ignorant crap. Where did you go to school, the 18th century?
Here, read this. Learn something.
Beautiful.
If you don't understand this...
> ...cognitively a prefrontal human brain growing over the mammal brain, over the lizard brain, over the autonomous functions.
...then I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden. Sagan discusses the anatomy and evolution of the human brain in some detail, and it's a very, very accessible book for anyone interested in the physical sciences.
If you don't understand this...
> ...physiologically more bacteria than human...
...I'm afraid I don't have a book recommendation right now, but I highly recommend this podcast: Astronomy 141: Life in the Universe. Specifically, unit 3 (Life on Earth) contains a great distillation of what we know about the origins of life on earth and our own relation to bacteria, the most successful form of life on earth. If you don't want to listen to the whole unit (or the whole series), lectures 18, 19, and 20 are the most relevant (if I'm recalling their content correctly).
Anybody else wanna chime in with recommended videos, reading, etc.?
You should read this book. It talks a lot about the evolutionary reasons that such things developed in humans, and is really incredibly interesting. I think you would enjoy it.
i recommend THIS book. Very interesting stuff about the reptile brain.
The biggest collection of Philosophy of Cognitive Science is probably in the PhilPapers collection.
A couple of my favorite books in this area:
According to Temple Grandin (in _Animals in Translation_), mice do the same thing. If you run mice through a maze all day, you can (through electrodes embedded in their brain or something), correlate various brain signals with where they were in the maze. Then, later, when they go to sleep, you can still look at the data coming from the brain signals, and you can tell that they are still running the maze in their dreams. Pretty crazy idea, pretty cool experiment.
(The book is very interesting, and chock full of strange animal facts. Check it out!)
Yup. Read the The Race Myth. Fascinating book.
Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-New-Science-Mind/dp/020501562X
Chapters 4, 5 & 6.
Keep in mind also that humans are just big monkeys, and all the primates spend a lot of time in grooming activities. It's one of the primary means towards social cohesion. If you haven't before, read Chimpanzee Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562)--it illustrates a ton of behaviors that are shared between humans and the hairier apes.
The discussion of the exact chemical pathways is also very interesting.
>'Characteristics of our evolutionary ability to survive are suppressed' - this sounds like you've read Nietzsche recently.
I find Nietzsche incredibly boring. Carl Sagan wrote a book describing what I said in the context of the evolution of the human brain.
The short version is the neo-cortex(the one biological difference between us and all other animals) evolved over a reptilian brain, which evolved over a fish brain. We have logic, but we have uncontrollable emotional impulses as well. We have a biological imperative which drives us to survive, and in spite of our "humanity," it is impossible to rid ourselves of this evolutionary trait.
>In fact - human cooperation and altruism are probably some of our traits that have let us survive to our time.
Nearly all animals cooperate on an immediately obvious scale. If you account for the food chain/cycle of life, then every single organism on the planet coorperates with every other organism. Cooperation is not at all unique to humans. In fact, it could be argued human cooperation is deeply flawed, seeing as how we are capable of duplicity and betrayal, whereas other animals on the planet do not express these traits and instead work in harmony.
The idea of altruism as a survival characteristic is absurd. Any species not acting selfishly will become extinct very quickly. The idea of altruism is itself a design of society. Look at any ethics debate on it and you'll find the end result is the question of whether true altruism even exists.
>I do believe that people would try to work together as much as possible for as long as possible.
I agree, but the scale you seem to imply is simply not sustainable without the current infrastructure, and our infrastructure would disappear within a few weeks. I believe society would disintegrate into family units which can support themselves through force and/or agriculture. Perhaps once they are well established in the new environment they will seek other survivors and begin to establish a new society within the changed environment.
>'Killing other people for your own sake becomes a necessary normality', well there's another strange assumption.
This is a perfectly rational assumption. I think this idea is brilliantly addressed in The Walking Dead graphic novels. You might kill to defend yourself. You might kill to reap someone else's home or supplies. You might be a sociopath. You might even send someone away at gunpoint, condemning them to an equal fate. You might kill someone to protect the secret of your location. Either they die, or you do, and unless you are insane or a samurai you will probably choose them.