X-Message-Number: 22231
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:45:04 -0400
From: Keith Henson <>
Subject: Evolutionary psychology and memetics

Michael LaTorra wrote:
>Message #22228
>From: "mike99" <>
>Subject: RE: #22217 - Denial of Life
>Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:30:11 -0600
>
>David Stodolsky <> wrote:
> > I have to point out here that evolutionary psychology has become
> > something of fad, and many of the claims have no backing, in terms of
> > evidence.

Could you provide a few examples of such claims?

"The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and 
understand the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an 
approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary 
biology are put to use in research on the structure of the human mind. It 
is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behaviour. It is 
a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it.

"In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that 
were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our 
hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and 
behaviour is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up 
new ones." Leda Cosmides & John Tooby.

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html

> >The term 'meme' is not used by professional psychologists.

That's a mighty strong statement.  What, for example, is Dr. Susan 
Blackmore?  How about Dr. Paul Marsden?

"Dr. Paul Marsden is a psychologist and visiting research fellow of the 
University of Sussex.  Using memetics, the Darwinian science of culture and 
creativity, to study infectious ideas . . . ."

> > However, Becker's theory does assume that social learning is a crucial
> > and determines how the fear of death will be buffered.

"A rose by any other name . . . ."

>Mike LaTorra:
>Ev-psych is still fairly young, especially when compared to hoary old
>Freudianism (and its variant descendants). As such, ev-psych has not yet
>accumulated a large body of experimental verifications.

Of course, when psychoanalysis was subjected to experimental verification 
it fell short.  (I.e., studies showed it was useless.)  People paid for 
psychoanalysis through the nose however, and the willingness of people to 
part with large sums of money in exchange for attention contributed to my 
understanding of how cults use attention rewards.  Cult victims (not to 
mention psychoanalysis patients) are bonded to attention rewards through 
the same brain reward circuits active in drug addiction.  (And 
susceptibility to chemical addiction is the direct consequences of the way 
social rewards are chemically mediated.)  Social rewards in turn have a 
direct evolutionary link because they contribute(d) to reproductive success.

>Almost certainly
>some ev-psych claims will be found to be wrong, either in part or in their
>entirety. But I think it premature to dismiss the field as a "fad." The fact
>that only a few scientists, such as cognitive psych./philosopher Daniel
>Dennett and psychologist Susan Blackmore, have yet to fully embrace the
>"meme" concept may, or may not, prove significant in the long run. New
>theories are rarely embraced immediately by one and all experts in any
>field.

So true.

>Mike L.
>For those interested only in descriptions, Becker may be a fine guide. For
>those interested in fundamental mechanisms at the lowest levels of
>biological and cognitive functioning, descriptions are insufficient. I tend
>to be dubious about descriptive approaches that try to infer causation
>without being able to demonstrate it rigorously. Perhaps this is simply my
>own psychological peculiarity? ;)

And mine.  Human psychology was this blob floating out there with no 
foundations.  Evolution underlies every thing biological, including 
psychology.  Evolutionary psychology is putting a foundation under 
psychology.  Painful process to be sure.

>   Well, at any rate, I find ev-psych to be a more interesting approach
>because it promises at least the possibility of reaching the deep level of
>explanation that I am looking for. Whether ev-psych will deliver on these
>promises is yet to be seen. So give it time. My guess is that we are still
>decades away from resolving the issue. Stay tuned.

Ev-psych suggests plausible (and sometimes testable) origins to 
psychological traits that are otherwise mysteries.  Take Stockholm 
Syndrome, or, more descriptive, capture-bonding.  The evolutionary 
selection of *this* psychological trait in the face of frequent capture of 
(mostly) women between tribes is obvious.  Bond to your captors and you 
have a good chance at being an ancestor.  Don't and wind up on the menu.

Another is an entire complex of wired-in psychological traits that prepare 
a group for aggressive war in times of privation or looming privation 
(probably by increasing the "gain" on circulating xenophobic memes).  The 
counter tribal defense mechanism is the kind of psychological traits 
brought out by a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 attack.

Hot topics.

Keith Henson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22231