Keith Henson wrote that times of trouble tend to make for a spread in
xenophobic notions. He said that idea came from evolutionary
psychology.
Regarding evolutionary psychology, Gautam Mukunda wrote
My problem ... It struck me as a "just so" story.
This is true. I like the notion of `xenophobic memes' and even wrote
an essay
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/xeno-savy.html
on it. (In that essay, I also write about the notion I came up with
that in times of trouble, people would come increasingly to dislike
`nice' but incompetent leaders, and be more likely to follow savy men;
people would want to focus on winning, not just on `getting along'.
(And I cam up with the notion that a society would permit those savy
men to find out more about the enemy, to enable more spying, so as to
be better able to kill them -- in effect, to enable a few to be more
obvious about their xenophilia than before.)
My question is whether evolutionary psychology provides good
explanations? It does provide a good source of hypothesises. No
doubt about that.
But as for explanations: the issue between modular and general
capabilities is somewhat irrelevant, at least for me. (It is clear to
me that `spaghetti code' is less likely to work than modular code; and
I am willing to extend that idea from programs to brains.)
One issue is whether one evolutionary explanation is more persuasive
than another, a second issue is whether evolutionary explanation are
more likely than others, and a third issue is whether capability is
inherited primarily through genetic or primarily through cultural
means?
As an example, what about the hypothesis that xenophilia (among a few)
is triggered by bad times, on account it enables more effective
fighting and a greater likelihood of killing the others?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
Since I am slowly updating it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have written a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
