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

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.

[ 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

[PrayingMantis]

[ 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.

[ 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?