Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Steven Pinker / Evolutionary Psychology

inflatable jesus

I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
I've been reading 'the blank slate' this past week and while I'm finding a few things to disagree with, it seems like an approach to ideas of human nature that concentrates in the right areas. It also seems to confirm a lot of things I had been thinking recently about ethics as an evolutionary strategy.

I was just curious to see if anyone else had read this stuff and what they thought of it.

I'd also appreciate any book recommendations that deal with the same subject.
 
Re. book recommendations, you could do worse than have a look at the books listed by the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, of which Pinker is or was some sort of office holder.

http://www.hbes.com/Hbes/books_c.htm

They also publish a journal, Evolution and Human Behavior, and you can have a look at the kind of research work detailed in it here:

http://www.ehbonline.org/issues

(Without a subscription, you can only read the journal article abstracts, but that's still useful for gaining a general overview.)

The first really significant book attemping to integrate cognitive psychology and evolutionary biology was The Adapted Mind, edited by Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, published in 1992.
 
I’m not a fan.

I think evolutionary psychology can be illuminating. It represents a positive step intellectually in that it situates culture in the natural world rather than leaving it as a free-floating abstraction. On the other hand it treats humans as if they were the same sorts of objects that the natural sciences deal with it. It tries to strip away observer-relative features and get to the reality of culture as it is “in itself” (particularly the causal reasons why culture is as it is).

Now for the natural sciences causal explanation makes sense: their success stems from their capacity to abstract away from observer bias and thus more accurately produce practical knowledge (know-how) about how to manipulate the reality that we must presume exists independently of our conceptions of it. Given this interest in manipulation (what grants science the societal pride of place that it has) we can see that observer-relative features* actively serve to impede the production of practical knowledge.

Yet humans are self-interpreting language users. Our observer-relative features (understanding) are partly constitutive of who/what we are. Sure, you can study humans as animals (biological science) but you’re only studying one aspect of our existence and it would be patently absurd to say that the biological sciences exhaust what can be said about human beings. The natural sciences offer causal explanations of how things happen but there’s another level inherent in our capacity for interpretation concerning the understanding of what happens and crucially this is the level at which culture operates.

My problem with evolutionary psychology is that it tries to explain the culture in a purely causal manner. Even where it’s methodologically self-aware enough to take account of its own penchant for reductive explanation, it’s still going to be reductive because it can’t grant any autonomy to understanding: at best understanding is always going to be subordinated to explanation. More so, it fails to take into account the fact that the evolutionary psychologist themselves are self-interpreting language users. There’s a dual reflexivity to any human inquiry into human life which isn’t present in the natural sciences and which those human sciences which model themselves on the natural sciences entirely and, in my view fatally, miss.

However on the other hand there’s a fair amount of what evolutionary psychologists say that makes sense. If you embark on an inquiry concerned solely with understanding then you fail to situate culture in a naturalistic context and miss out on some interesting thoughts. Even so, if you embark on an inquiry concerned solely with causal explanation (as I’d contend the evolutionary psychologists still basically do, even if they’ve ditched the overt reductionism of socio-biology) then you miss out on some other interesting thoughts. The distinction in intellectual method between causal explanation and understanding (between fact and value, description and evaluation, observer-relative and intrinsic feature) is itself a product of a particular intellectual culture. Or rather a series of cultural strands: mutually reinforcing and perpetuated by the network of their disagreements and divergences from each other. You can’t step outside of this and make concrete final statements about culture as if they exhaust all there is to say about it. There are interesting and useful things to be said. Likewise there are standards of intellectual inquiry to be upheld. Even so, the notion of objectivity inherent in the natural sciences isn’t really applicable. In the natural sciences the notion works: whether or not it’s philosophically defensible is a subsequent question. In the human sciences it doesn’t work. It just inoculates the delusion that you’re saying all there is to say by entirely obscuring all the kinds of things you’re not saying from view.

*I don’t actually think that there’s a principled distinction that can be made between observer-relative features and intrinsic features but that’s an entirely different topic
 
inflatable jesus said:
I've been reading 'the blank slate' this past week and while I'm finding a few things to disagree with, it seems like an approach to ideas of human nature that concentrates in the right areas. It also seems to confirm a lot of things I had been thinking recently about ethics as an evolutionary strategy.

I was just curious to see if anyone else had read this stuff and what they thought of it.

I'd also appreciate any book recommendations that deal with the same subject.
I've read it a couple of times and have a fair bit to say about it, but I'm completely fucked at the moment.
 
Nosos

Is there a particular claim (or set of claims) that Evolutionary Psychologists make that you think that problem affects?


Purves Grundy

I look forward to hearing about it when you're not fucked. :)
 
Ive not read The blank slate but his third book 'how the mind works' explains alot through evolutionary psy. and it makes to me. Obviously there's alot which can't be explained because of the complications culture and language raise, but like Nosos said culture is only part of what we are; and bear in mind langauge (which is a prerequisite of culture?) is BASED on brain functions which evolved in the traditional way. Pinker points out that the language we use to explain many intellectual concepts (such as time, health and wealth) in many ways reflects our understanding of space; which i'd assume plays the biggest part in how we interact with the world (we GO FROM bring sick TO being well; periods of time GO FROM one POSITION in time TO another).

Its worth mentioning this guys second book is titled 'the langauge instinct', which I haven't read but it sounds like it'd have things to say about Nosos' argument. How the mind works' has a section on what the OP mentiond, ethics as an evolutionary strategy. But ill leave that till things start happening here again =)
 
The Blank Slate rocks - great book, and one that actually attempts to draw a line on the whole nature/nurture business.

On the interpretive function...that interpretation is the result of electrochemical interactions in the mind - ultimatley EVERYTHING is biology for humans, even if you think consciousness is a quantum effect, all our thoughts, feelings etc are created by chemistry. How that set of interactions works I have no idea, but as with understanding why hierarchy is the most successful method of organising large amounts of human beings (and by 'successful' I mean it in the sense that it's continually been able to survive social upheavals as the de facto method of structuring society), I reckon it's a key piece of knowledge we're missing.
 
kyser_soze said:
The Blank Slate rocks - great book, and one that actually attempts to draw a line on the whole nature/nurture business.

On the interpretive function...that interpretation is the result of electrochemical interactions in the mind - ultimatley EVERYTHING is biology for humans, even if you think consciousness is a quantum effect, all our thoughts, feelings etc are created by chemistry. How that set of interactions works I have no idea, but as with understanding why hierarchy is the most successful method of organising large amounts of human beings (and by 'successful' I mean it in the sense that it's continually been able to survive social upheavals as the de facto method of structuring society), I reckon it's a key piece of knowledge we're missing.

Oh, The Saviour has come, has he? The Theory of Everything is no longer required, as we now have it, non?:rolleyes: :p :D Bless...:D
 
Exactly, how come you guys don't get tired of "I don't need to exercise my little grey cells any more, as it's all been sorted out for me"?!?:rolleyes: Bliss...:p :D
 
But I do excercise my brain cells...just not on contemplating my own navel. Obviously we've got tons to learn...but at the end of the day, we're biology, and what we think and feel comes from biological systems.
 
Oh, really - so how come that biology can be not only arrested - but driven to self-anihilation?:rolleyes:

The whole civilisation and culture "superstructure", as many have argued very convincingly, arises from going directly against the biology...:cool:

What everyday, common sense, received wisdom, darwinian rubbish...:rolleyes: :D
 
The whole civilisation and culture "superstructure", as many have argued very convincingly, arises from going directly against the biology...

Ah, so today you're playing the part of neo-primitivist and saying that the modern world is rubbish and unnatural, that were we still in our state of nature we'd be in balance with the world.

Or are you proposing that there is something OTHER than our biology that enables us to think? Some other agency or dimension where our thoughts occur? That your thoughts AREN'T a collection of electrical impulses...
 
Our biology enables us to think in such a way to destroy it?:rolleyes:

I think you need to re-think, m8...:cool:
 
Not at all - you're presupposing that biological entities come with some kind of inbuilt knowledge of how to survive and maintain/optimise their environment (physical and social) for the best possible ends. As 'conscious' entities, humans may well be more aware of death and be able to create it in a variety of different ways - from quick individual death to what appears to be behaviour akin to a mindless, drawn out form of species-suicide in our treatment of the environment, but that doesn't stop your thoughts being biologically based - unless you want to argue that there's a different place where our thoughts happen.
 
Echhhhhhhhh...:( No point, really...:oops: Phil was right...:cool: "Crude materialists" never learn...:rolleyes: :D
 
I expected this sort of an answer from you, as you just can't think in any other manner - and that's a fact. You can't even conceive of a different kind of non-mechanical, crudely materialistic, simpleton type of thinking on these issues... "Matter first and all is said and done,then..." Jeezus!!:eek:

No one is saying we're angelic, non-corporeal beings, FFS...:rolleyes: But this type of a set-up doesn't give us any bloody insight into what it means to be Human!!!

You are NOT saying ANYTHING of ANY importance like that and you think you've said it all - at a point where a really interesting inquiry ought to start...

And that says it all!!!

[FYI: we are not ANIMALS if we are LIVING BEINGS - we are essentially different in all aspects of our Humanity!!!]
 
But we ARE animals - complex and different from the others, but ultimately still animals and as with other living things, thebasic urges to survive long enough to raise viable young. All the stuff about 'what it means to be human'...what's the point, it's the same as asking 'what's my purpose, what's the meaning for my existance' - it's all narrative creation to satisfy a need in our psychology.

So enlighten me as to what it 'means' to be human, outside of something we define ourselves (or allow others to define for us).

In fact enlighten me full stop - what constitutes this wonderful 'non-mechanistic thinking' you refer to? From where I'm standing you're still into the idea that humans are in some way higher than other biological systems, that there is 'meaning' to be gathered simply from the fact we exist, and that you need a narrative to feel happy about it all.
 
"[FYI: we are not ANIMALS if we are LIVING BEINGS - we are essentially different in all aspects of our Humanity!!!]"

Lovely little bit of discontinuous thinking.

And do stop being a crude materialist Kyser, or are you wearing your "rude mechanical" hat today?.

If the latter, could you please PM me a link to the new copy of the alternative tube-map to for London?;)

I've outgrown the old one. I'ts boring me.

Like evolution, cosmology, and all that other scientific hegemonistic capitalist claptrap.

My mind is so huge, I now understand the whole of science perfectly, and I'm looking for a new challenge.
 
Well you haven't actually bothered answering my question gorski - show me where I can find things that will lift my thinking from 'crude materlism' into something more rarefied and enlightened - seriously, I'm willing to listen to a well written, coherent argument that doesn't rely on ellipsis or fragmented sentences (which the vast bulk of your posts consist of).

For real - come on, I'm non-mechanical enough to accept quantum theory, and there's little in the world less mechanistic than QM.
 
That's a good start, sure.:cool:

But me explaining it all to you from the start - sure, Prince, why not...:rolleyes: :p :D

Anyways, knock yourself out REALLY putting those little grey cells to proper work... [One can dream, can't one... as in: you, crude materialists, having an open mind and a capability to get it...:rolleyes:]
 
And still no actual answer...maybe that's the way to enlightenment...I went back through the thread and was reminded that, like phil, your appreciation of what is most current in science is lacking and that you're just as wedded to POV as I am.
 
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/values.htm - and another one for a really good think...

ABSTRACT. Values intersect with science in three primary ways. First, there are values, particularly epistemic values, which guide scientific research itself. Second, the scientific enterprise is always embedded in some particular culture and values enter science through its individual practitioners, whether consciously or not. Finally, values emerge from science, both as a product and process, and may be redistributed more broadly in the culture or society. Also, scientific discoveries may pose new social challenges about values, though the values themselves may be conventional. Several questions help guide disciplined inquiry into ethics and values.

1. Introduction

A fundamental feature of science, as conceived by most scientists, is that it deals with facts, not values. Further, science is objective, while values are not. These benchmarks can offer great comfort to scientists, who often see themselves as working in the privileged domain of certain and permanent knowledge. Such views of science are also closely allied in the public sphere with the authority of scientists and the powerful imprimatur of evidence as "scientific". Recently, however, sociologists of science, among others, have challenged the notion of science as value-free and thereby raised questions--especially important for emerging scientists--about the authority of science and its methods.

The popular conceptions--both that science is value-free and that objectivity is best exemplified by scientific fact--are overstated and misleading. This does not oblige us, however, to abandon science or objectivity, or to embrace an uneasy relativism. First, science does express a wealth of epistemic values and inevitably incorporates cultural values in practice. But this need not be a threat: some values in science govern how we regulate the potentially biasing effect of other values in producing reliable knowledge. Indeed, a diversity of values promotes more robust knowledge where they intersect. Second, values can be equally objective when they require communal justification and must thereby be based on generally accepted principles. In what follows, I survey broadly the relation of science and values, sample important recent findings in the history, philosophy and sociology of science, and suggest generally how to address these issues (this essay is adapted from Allchin, 1998).

Moreover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theory_and_the_political_left

The majority of those on the left do not oppose Darwinism per se, but are critical of interpretations of evolutionary theory that, in their view, overemphasize the role of competition and ignore elements of co-operation in nature such as symbiosis.
 
Back
Top Bottom