if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

in the other thread called "evolution and love" people are talking about how lust is for sex, love is for raising children, altruism is not really altruism it's about getting something in return for it later. here is they key point on this subject that some smart writer wrote about (and hopefully, if you are you cycnical of people and their motivations becuase of the evolutionary psychology, this will fix you)...

people evolved to have 'altruism' because in general we'll get something in return. it is not perfect though, it doesn't work everytime. some of the time we'll give something and not get something back because we are not computers that strictly analyze everything. in other words, our emotions try and approximate a cold analyzing computer but that is NOT what they are, at base they are emotions. take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
in the other thread called "evolution and love" people are talking about how lust is for sex, love is for raising children, altruism is not really altruism it's about getting something in return for it later. here is they key point on this subject that some smart writer wrote about (and hopefully, if you are you cycnical of people and their motivations becuase of the evolutionary psychology, this will fix you)...

people evolved to have 'altruism' because in general we'll get something in return. it is not perfect though, it doesn't work everytime. some of the time we'll give something and not get something back because we are not computers that strictly analyze everything. in other words, our emotions try and approximate a cold analyzing computer but that is NOT what they are, at base they are emotions. take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like this person is talking at the level of a person which is wrong. We are not evolved to love so that we will give and sometimes get something back. We are evolved to love because that increases the survival chances of our genes.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
We are evolved to love because that increases the survival chances of our genes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove this statement.

Thank you.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are evolved to love because that increases the survival chances of our genes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove this statement.

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, its a scientific theory not maths.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

Emotions as a cold computer?

Seriously...since when did evolution make us ONLY colddhearted and calculating?

There is nothing wrong with being compassionate, loving, caring, gentle, giving or altruistic from an evolutionary standpoint.

In fact those traits together with many others is what makes us human, and the advancement of our species would have been impossible without those traits.

They are epic, admirable and unique.

I never get why so many think a little evolutionary thinking makes those things be worth less.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
no, its a scientific theory not maths.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing scientific about this theory. It doesn't even pass a basic nonsense test.

"We are evolved to love because that increases the survival chances of our genes."

let's make some similar statements shall we?

"10% of our population are evolved to be homosexuals because that increases the survival chances of our genes"

"We are evolved to love walks on the beach, because the increases the survival chances of our genes"

"We are evolved to have be angry and aggressive, because that increases the survival chances of our genes"
+
"We are evolved to be peaceful and friendly, because that increases the survival chances of our genes"

OK, I went a bit overboard, but my point is that not every trait we have (especially psychological ones) is present because it increases (or has increased) the survival chances of our genes. Changes in brain size and the development of a frontal lobe can create a capacity for complex thought and emotion attachment, which in turns makes things like love possible. This increase in brain size may well have happened for other reasons not related to love or its benefits, and now the underlying capacity is present.

Same as we didn't evolve a math IQ because doing equations increased the survival chances of our genes. Og Sklansky who lived 100,000 years and founded Sklanskyanity (the first religion) did nothing more than simple arithmetic. There was no selection pressure for those that could do math. But spatial analysis skills and language skills were likely important, so an underlying architecture developed that could later be used for other things.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

So your view is that a person with no capacity to love would have just as high a chance to pass on his genes and have offspring that makes it to mature age as a person with this capacity?

I study psychology, I can tell you most of our traits _especially_ psychological ones, can be attritbuted to be evolutionary adaptions, and that includes love.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

Sorry, if I wasn't clear but all I am saying is that evolutionary theory is at the gene level not the person level. For example, if the 'smart' person was saying that evolutionary theory means that parents love their children because of some possible future benefit to the parent he is wrong. Parents have evolved to love their children for the benefit of their genes.

It is a scientific theory so I can't prove it but its pretty succesful as science goes.


chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, if I wasn't clear but all I am saying is that evolutionary theory is at the gene level not the person level. If the 'smart' person was saying that evolutionary theory means that parents love their children because of some possible future benefit to the parent he is wrong. Parents have evolved to love their children for the benefit of their genes.

It is a scientific theory so I can't prove it but its pretty succesful as science goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree with phil's points, with regard to your posts on this thread, but not necessarily agree with his reasons for the points he makes. As to your posts: you are making (wrong) semantical arguments that have nothing to do with "science" of any kind. For instance, this sentence: "all I am saying is that evolutionary theory is at the gene level not the person level", is simply very confused. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but the concept of "genes" in itself is not related to the basical idea of evolutionary theory at all. As a matter of fact, the theory of evolution was originated long before any idea about "genes", and the "discovery of genes" did not change the basic thinking behind the theory of evolution, as it did not affect it, since it only "helped" to explain the "mechanics" of it. The evolutionary theory is certainly not on the "level" of genes (more than any other "level"), because when you apply evolutionary theory explanation to specific human behaviours, you are assuming some way of transmitting the "genetic" inoformation, and your assumption is there in any case (clearly, you might simply say that there are "genes" for different abilities to love, as persons, and groups that have people with "improved" genetic love ability for their children survive better. It's only a semantical difference).

Also, saying that "If the 'smart' person was saying that evolutionary theory means that parents love their children because of some possible future benefit to the parent he is wrong", is nonsense. He might be wrong, he might be right, nobody has good enough tools to judge, since he's just offering an "evolutionary interpretation". Parents might love their children because of some possible fututre benefit, and it might work very well with an evolutionary theory, since the circle of 'giving love-getting love back when you're old' might be very useful in terms of long term survival of a species, or a group, that might be in need of the wisdom of the older members, and therefore, it is crucial to keep them around as long as possible. And by giving love to their children, the parents "secure" some possible benefits in the future, to keep them alive and in good shape, which might help the whole group and speicies in return.

Of course, this is only one line of thinking. You can take any human behaviour, and give it several very different interpretation that might get along with evolutionary theory. In fact, that's one of the great weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and why it is not a theory in the same sense that certain theories in physics, for instance, are scientific theories.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
So your view is that a person with no capacity to love would have just as high a chance to pass on his genes and have offspring that makes it to mature age as a person with this capacity?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Animals do just fine without it, including highly social animals. Their genes gets passed on just fine. But that's not my point. My point is that the ability to love is not a specific gene(s). The underlying architecture of the brain is what develops, love could be just a capacity we've gained along the way from a brain that developed via other selection mechanisms.

[ QUOTE ]
I study psychology, I can tell you most of our traits _especially_ psychological ones, can be attritbuted to be evolutionary adaptions, and that includes love.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but...at what point did we develop them? The brain's pleasure pathways have presumably been around since the first mammals, and cruder versions exist in reptile brains. Emotions also developed a long time ago in our primitive mammalian brains, at a time when we had no capacity for individual thought or expression. Sexual arousal has been around even longer. So all of the traits and basic neurobiology required for 'love' already existed in a crude form. With an increase in brain size, intelligence, and awareness, the capacity to love could develop automatically without any selection pressure.

Looking at the last million years, was there ever a selection pressure that meant that people who experienced 'love' were better at breeding and more likely to pass on their genes? I don't think so. Until a few thousand years ago, life was (my fav quote) "nasty, brutish, and short". The most prolific breeders (those that passed on the most genes) were the strongest and/or smartest males and the healthiest, horniest and cluckiest females (as is the case today). And note that attending to a child's basic needs is not the same as loving.

So can we stop pretending that our shoehorning is scientific?

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the ability to love is not a specific gene(s). The underlying architecture of the brain is what develops, love could be just a capacity we've gained along the way from a brain that developed via other selection mechanisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the underlying architechure of the brain develops, so does the genes. But that is really besides the point, there is no need to bring genes into the picture at all, but even if you do, it will not change the discussion at all. Genes are just the mechanics of heritage. As the previous poster so well stated, the theory of evolution precedes any theories of genes.

Ofcourse an adaption builds on previously made mechanism. Evolution is a almost exclusively a 'step by step' effect. I think almost everyone who knows anything about evolution knows that. An adaption is developed, with this adaption comes the possibility of a new adaption. If this new adaption makes the being more apt to survive and pass on his genes, then this adaption will have a larger likelyhood of survival than one who don't. It isn't any worse than that.

Humans are a social creature, everybody who thinks about it for two seconds will intuitively know that feeling love increases the chance of relationship, which in turn increases the chance of offspring, which in turn increases the chance of passing on your genes, which in turn increases the chance of offspring with the capacity to love.

And the 'strong&harsh' argument doesn't hold up. Our species are and were weaker than similar species that existed in our dawn, and we survived those species. Not by muscle, but most likely by social traits, the development of language and complex communication. Social adaptions are probably what has been most adament in securing the place our species has in nature, love may very well be one of the most important of those traits.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Humans are a social creature, everybody who thinks about it for two seconds will intuitively know that feeling love increases the chance of relationship, which in turn increases the chance of offspring, which in turn increases the chance of passing on your genes, which in turn increases the chance of offspring with the capacity to love.

[/ QUOTE ]
In our current society of birth control, planned parenthood, a civilised society, this is very true. However, this was not the case in the past. You don't even need to go back in time to see this - just look at any third world country (especially lawless ones) and you'll see that 'love' has very little do with success in breeding and passing on genes (or the number of offspring that make it to adulthood).

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

That gene weren't known about by Darwin is entirely irrelelevent. Firstly this is not a historical conversation but about where we are now, secondly he still had the right idea and realised it wasn't about what's to the advantage of an individual.

I know you like a bit of abstract stuff so let T be a theory that imples R. If someone says that T implies R' and R' -> ~R then they are wrong or T is defeated. The fact that T might also be wrong is irrelevent.

wiki on the theory of evolution

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the underlying architechure of the brain develops, so does the genes. But that is really besides the point, there is no need to bring genes into the picture at all, but even if you do, it will not change the discussion at all. Genes are just the mechanics of heritage. As the previous poster so well stated, the theory of evolution precedes any theories of genes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Its true that genes themselves didn't need to be discovered before the theory of evolution but its a strange point. Cosmology existed before the existence of curved space was known about but curved space is now a vital part of cosmology.

Its also true that the basic theory of evolution didn't change much with the discovery of the gene but part of Darwin's (and others) triumph is that it implied some mechanism for passing on successful traits before any such mechanism was discovered.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
That gene weren't known about by Darwin is entirely irrelelevent. Firstly this is not a historical conversation but about where we are now, secondly he still had the right idea and realised it wasn't about what's to the advantage of an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still completely miss the point. Of course it is not a historical conversation. Please read my last post again and tell me what parts of it you don't understand.

[ QUOTE ]
I know you like a bit of abstract stuff so let T be a theory that imples R. If someone says that T implies R' and R' -> ~R then they are wrong or T is defeated. The fact that T might also be wrong is irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, I do love these, but unfortunately it's completely irrelevant to the point in discussion. Again you try to formalize your claims, and by that you think they will turn meanigful in a way that is relevant. I'm sorry, They don't. The sentence "evolutionary theory is at the gene level not the person level", as other statements you've made on this thread, is simply a confused collection of words. There isn't even any point in "refuting" it, or "agreeing" with it. The whole notion of "gene level" being opposed in some way to "the person level" (without limitations) is absurd. You might want to read some more about "the theory of evolution", "persons", and "genes", not only on wiki.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cosmology existed before the existence of curved space was known about but curved space is now a vital part of cosmology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry chez, this is another completely irrelevant point. "Cosmology" is not a theory.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That gene weren't known about by Darwin is entirely irrelelevent. Firstly this is not a historical conversation but about where we are now, secondly he still had the right idea and realised it wasn't about what's to the advantage of an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

You still completely miss the point. Of course it is not a historical conversation. Please read my last post again and tell me what parts of it you don't understand.


[/ QUOTE ]
Read you post but if you think that any evolutionary advantage exists at a non-gene level then I wonder how you think any physiological trait persists through time.

I saw your dismissal of Wiki (is that because it described the theory of evolution at the gene level?). Maybe you like to reference some scientific sources that could explain traits like love at the person level. here's the relevent bit; [ QUOTE ]
In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.

[/ QUOTE ]
where
[ QUOTE ]
An allele is any one of a number of viable DNA codings of the same gene (sometimes the term refers to a non-gene sequence) occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome. Two alleles together comprise a gene.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the underlying architechure of the brain develops, so does the genes. But that is really besides the point, there is no need to bring genes into the picture at all, but even if you do, it will not change the discussion at all. Genes are just the mechanics of heritage. As the previous poster so well stated, the theory of evolution precedes any theories of genes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Its true that genes themselves didn't need to be discovered before the theory of evolution but its a strange point. Cosmology existed before the existence of curved space was known about but curved space is now a vital part of cosmology.

Its also true that the basic theory of evolution didn't change much with the discovery of the gene but part of Darwin's (and others) triumph is that it implied some mechanism for passing on successful traits before any such mechanism was discovered.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand my point.

In the math-piece 2-0, you don't need to mathematically define 0 (a daunting task), it is enough to know that it exists and have an idea of what it does and does not do to logically conclude the answer to the equation.

This is also the case of genes and heritage. The nature of genes are very complex, but in essence genes contain all heritable information that are bodily passed from parents to offspring. It is usually not necessary to dvelve on the nature or mechanics of genes to discuss evolution, unless you are asking some rather complex question (which noone in this thread has done).

Noone has turned this into a 'historical' discussion of theories. You can however rest assured that the nature of man's emotions are deeply embedded into our genes and they are for the most part explainable with the theory of evolution - with our without the honorable mention of genes.

Emotions are not learned responses to situations. Research has proved that humans feel before the frontal lobes (the centre of higher thinking) have reacted to a situation.

Higher thinking may alter the emotion in retrospect, but the point is still clear.

Emotion precedes higher thinking, and as such must be embedded into our physiology..and hence our born heritage.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Read you post but if you think that any evolutionary advantage exists at a non-gene level then I wonder how you think any physiological trait persists through time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does not exist at a "non-gene level". It might very well exist on the "person level" as well as on the "gene level". Such are many if not most "psychological tendencies".

[ QUOTE ]
I saw your dismissal of Wiki (is that because it described the theory of evolution at the gene level?).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't dismiss it at all. Again, there is no necessary contradiction between those two "levels", especially when discussing such a broad pshychological concept as "the ability to love". An "evolutional theory" with regard to the usefulness of love between parents and their children can be given without any need for an explanation at the "level of genes", and it will still be perfectly valid. You assume of course that such tendencies and others are carried on with specific genes, as you can do with regard to any kind of common human behaviour, which you wonder about the "importance" of its existence.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. Animals do just fine without it, including highly social animals. Their genes gets passed on just fine. But that's not my point. My point is that the ability to love is not a specific gene(s). The underlying architecture of the brain is what develops, love could be just a capacity we've gained along the way from a brain that developed via other selection mechanisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Insel and Young's work on the promiscuous montane vole vs. the monogamous prairie vole suggest that the main difference is in the promoter of a single gene. While of course we can't say the prairie vole's lifetime pairbonding is love, behaviorally it can be considered very similar and it does make a huge difference in the prairie vole passing on it's genes.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree, but...at what point did we develop them? The brain's pleasure pathways have presumably been around since the first mammals, and cruder versions exist in reptile brains. Emotions also developed a long time ago in our primitive mammalian brains, at a time when we had no capacity for individual thought or expression. Sexual arousal has been around even longer. So all of the traits and basic neurobiology required for 'love' already existed in a crude form. With an increase in brain size, intelligence, and awareness, the capacity to love could develop automatically without any selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not those pathways but what triggers them which is different.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at the last million years, was there ever a selection pressure that meant that people who experienced 'love' were better at breeding and more likely to pass on their genes? I don't think so. Until a few thousand years ago, life was (my fav quote) "nasty, brutish, and short". The most prolific breeders (those that passed on the most genes) were the strongest and/or smartest males and the healthiest, horniest and cluckiest females (as is the case today). And note that attending to a child's basic needs is not the same as loving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Pairbonding and parental care would often trump the strongest of males or the horniest of females if they weren't proficient at those behaviors.

The main problem in this argument is defining "love"
If you define it as the OED does then it does give a selective advantage if for only helping out with resources, parental care, mate guarding, etc. etc.etc.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you like to reference some scientific sources that could explain traits like love at the person level. here's the relevent bit;

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.
An allele is any one of a number of viable DNA codings of the same gene (sometimes the term refers to a non-gene sequence) occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome. Two alleles together comprise a gene.

[/ QUOTE ]
Must......not....post....ORLY.....Bird!

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read you post but if you think that any evolutionary advantage exists at a non-gene level then I wonder how you think any physiological trait persists through time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does not exist at a "non-gene level". It might very well exist on the "person level" as well as on the "gene level". Such are many if not most "psychological tendencies".

[ QUOTE ]
I saw your dismissal of Wiki (is that because it described the theory of evolution at the gene level?).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't dismiss it at all. Again, there is no necessary contradiction between those two "levels", especially when discussing such a broad pshychological concept as "the ability to love". An "evolutional theory" with regard to the usefulness of love between parents and their children can be given without any need for an explanation at the "level of genes", and it will still be perfectly valid. You assume of course that such tendencies and others are carried on with specific genes, as you can do with regard to any kind of common human behaviour, which you wonder about the "importance" of its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
So now I don't see where you disagree with what I said in the first place. Of course an explanation at the person level will often suffice (simply because people are evolved to want what is in the interest of our genes) but it will often be misleading.

Explaining love as giving so that we will later recieve is extremely misleading. In fact it is wrong or the currently accepted theory of evolution is wrong.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explaining love as giving so that we will later recieve is extremely misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is in no way an explantaion. However, "love" (ignoring for the minute the inifinite ways to define it), can be "evolutionary explained" as having a big part in a deep and complex sharing system between individual human beings, which might be critical to the relative success of our partiulcar species as a whole (there are many ways to explain why it is so, and quite a few psychologists do this). To be quite honest here, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about most "evolutional psychology" explanations, as they can indeed be quite confused and misleading. Regardless, they can still be consistent in most senses with the theory of evolution.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

What's really funny about this thread is how not a single person has addressed Bruiser's most excellent point:

[ QUOTE ]
take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Bruiser. Just out of interest, does anyone understand what he's actually saying? It's really quite profound.

OK, carry on folks.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's really funny about this thread is how not a single person has addressed Bruiser's most excellent point:

[ QUOTE ]
take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Bruiser. Just out of interest, does anyone understand what he's actually saying? It's really quite profound.

OK, carry on folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize this is the Science, Math, and Philosophy board.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's really funny about this thread is how not a single person has addressed Bruiser's most excellent point:

[ QUOTE ]
take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Bruiser. Just out of interest, does anyone understand what he's actually saying? It's really quite profound.

OK, carry on folks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to think that bits profound as I've been banging on about it for longer than this forum has existed. Except for the 'lets leave it at that' - evolution interesting you know.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explaining love as giving so that we will later recieve is extremely misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is in no way an explantaion. However, "love" (ignoring for the minute the inifinite ways to define it), can be "evolutionary explained" as having a big part in a deep and complex sharing system between individual human beings, which might be critical to the relative success of our partiulcar species as a whole (there are many ways to explain why it is so, and quite a few psychologists do this). To be quite honest here, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about most "evolutional psychology" explanations, as they can indeed be quite confused and misleading. Regardless, they can still be consistent in most senses with the theory of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]An outbreak of agreement between us, I hope. I wasn't suggesting that the reason for love was simple, there could be complex reasons as to why its beneficial for our species/genes.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

I agree with you, chez. I don’t see it as simple as Phil. This gets to the heart of the main debate on Religion, I think. Did we evolve into a species that loves? What causes us to love? I think this is where ideas of the “soul” and God come in for the believer.

I would understand if one says “just leave it at that for now ”; because now science does not know. But for science to leave it at that makes no sense to me.

And you must be correct too that it is interesting, otherwise this forum would lack a lot of its content.

RJT

My post here relates to not the immediately preceding post by chez, but the one before that. He is too quick for me and posted another in between my readiness.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the underlying architechure of the brain develops, so does the genes. But that is really besides the point, there is no need to bring genes into the picture at all, but even if you do, it will not change the discussion at all. Genes are just the mechanics of heritage. As the previous poster so well stated, the theory of evolution precedes any theories of genes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Its true that genes themselves didn't need to be discovered before the theory of evolution but its a strange point. Cosmology existed before the existence of curved space was known about but curved space is now a vital part of cosmology.

Its also true that the basic theory of evolution didn't change much with the discovery of the gene but part of Darwin's (and others) triumph is that it implied some mechanism for passing on successful traits before any such mechanism was discovered.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand my point...


[/ QUOTE ]
missed this one, sorry I wasn't disagreeing with what you said. I was just pointing out that the existence of a theory before genes were discovered was not an argument against modern evolutionary theory being about genes.

I do think its wrong to say that the discussion is not altered at all by understanding genetics although its impressive how far you can get without it.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
An outbreak of agreement between us, I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh happy day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you like to reference some scientific sources that could explain traits like love at the person level. here's the relevent bit;

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.
An allele is any one of a number of viable DNA codings of the same gene (sometimes the term refers to a non-gene sequence) occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome. Two alleles together comprise a gene.

[/ QUOTE ]
Must......not....post....ORLY.....Bird!

[/ QUOTE ]
missed this one as well. I dont understand, if its funny can you explain, alternatively if its offensive then can you explain.

Thanks

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]


people evolved to have 'altruism' because in general we'll get something in return. it is not perfect though, it doesn't work everytime. some of the time we'll give something and not get something back because we are not computers that strictly analyze everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big misconception about altruism. The key point is that atruism is present in the human animal because it favours propagation of the relevent genes, not necessarily the individual humans. Humans are more altruistic to people who share more genes with them because this helps the genes propagate. Altruism is not done with the purpose of aiding the person being altruitic directly, ie it hasn't evovled as a I help you so you will help me reasons.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's really funny about this thread is how not a single person has addressed Bruiser's most excellent point:

[ QUOTE ]
take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Bruiser. Just out of interest, does anyone understand what he's actually saying? It's really quite profound.

OK, carry on folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you phil, when i ran across this idea it really struck me as profound too. do you guys understand what i'm trying to say? it seems like you guys are debating over whether love is actually derived from evolution and provides advantages in passing down genes. for anyone that knows about this subject, it obviously does.

to repeat, what i'm saying is that people just MIMIC a strategy focussed soley on passing down genes (where no one cares about other people, they just care about passing on their genes), BUT it does this through THE MEDIUM OF EMOTIONS. when you feel altruism, it really is altruism people can and do feel altruistic and compassionate along with humanities other good traits.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

"Big misconception about altruism. The key point is that atruism is present in the human animal because it favours propagation of the relevent genes, not necessarily the individual humans. Humans are more altruistic to people who share more genes with them because this helps the genes propagate. Altruism is not done with the purpose of aiding the person being altruitic directly, ie it hasn't evovled as a I help you so you will help me reasons."

trantor, interesting point, it is besides the point of this thread but could you explain this? it seems like both theories (altruism is for reciprocity, and your idea) both make sense and maybe they both work? any evidence that supports one over the other?

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

"You do realize this is the Science, Math, and Philosophy board. "

this forum is the most retarded forum on 2+2, a bunch of ignoramuses and pedants.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
"You do realize this is the Science, Math, and Philosophy board. "

this forum is the most retarded forum on 2+2, a bunch of ignoramuses and pedants.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you mean pedents.

chez

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

500,

[ QUOTE ]
to repeat, what i'm saying is that people just MIMIC a strategy focussed soley on passing down genes (where no one cares about other people, they just care about passing on their genes), BUT it does this through THE MEDIUM OF EMOTIONS. when you feel altruism, it really is altruism people can and do feel altruistic and compassionate along with humanities other good traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I (think I) understand your point of the Medium, I do not understand when you ignore how this thing called emotions became part of the human species and you just “leave it that“. Your fiat to leave it at that is indeed saying that emotions have only to do with evolution. Is there proof to this? Or are you saying when you say “leave it at that” that we don’t know, but it has to be simply a medium.

I could have missed the whole point. If so then disregard.

RJT

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Big misconception about altruism. The key point is that atruism is present in the human animal because it favours propagation of the relevent genes, not necessarily the individual humans. Humans are more altruistic to people who share more genes with them because this helps the genes propagate. Altruism is not done with the purpose of aiding the person being altruitic directly, ie it hasn't evovled as a I help you so you will help me reasons."

trantor, interesting point, it is besides the point of this thread but could you explain this? it seems like both theories (altruism is for reciprocity, and your idea) both make sense and maybe they both work? any evidence that supports one over the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are many studies showing the degree og altruism is related to the degree of kinship. I'm not aware of any that show any altruism for only personal gain. On the other hand I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive but only the firstmakes sense to me on evolutinaty grounds.
And I believe my post was to the point in trying to show thw altruism he talked about is not altruism as generally understood.

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's really funny about this thread is how not a single person has addressed Bruiser's most excellent point:

[ QUOTE ]
take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that, it is just love because you are a human and humans love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point Bruiser. Just out of interest, does anyone understand what he's actually saying? It's really quite profound.

OK, carry on folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do. that is what altruism is. It seemed a bit of a tautology in that altruism makes you feel good...that's how it works! abit like saying sex is good foe continuing the species and somebody says sex feels good so let's enjoy it...yep sex i feels good because it helps perpetutae the genes...do we all have to say, yep you are right and profound sex does feel good?

Re: if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people
 

Bruiser, when you write "take emotions for what they are, at face value, if you feel love for someone just leave it at that", you imply that there's a possible way of not taking emotions for what they are. What is this way? or with regard to love, what could it to be to NOT "leave it at that"?

About this forum being a a bunch of ignoramuses and pedants, some posters here are, some are not. I don't think this forum is comparable to any other 2+2 forum, it's quite a bizarre place, retarded at times, non-retarded at others. There are smart people here, who sometimes get involved in stupid debates. That's about it.