if Evolutionary Psychology makes you cynical of people

[theBruiser500]

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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove this statement.

Thank you.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[ 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.

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.

[chezlaw]

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

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But altruism is well established as a gene propagator which is the particular point of the thread which does seem to be connected with with feeligs
("love") for others. Just more so for close kin. From umans to insects..altruism is a pretty much universal trait, as I understand things

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.

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.