Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it. in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there are others that are evident. It depends on the context. for example , woman have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive faster than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that you can guess why.
The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that point at you may be a treat. it 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > > > On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >> >> Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are >> falsifiable<https://www.google.es/search?q=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiable&oq=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiable&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.640&sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiable&oq=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiable&gs_l=serp.3...8248.8713.5.9590.4.4.0.0.0.3.261.878.2-4.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.7ojIOs_e60Q&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=561e2e0a6415ac8d&bpcl=39650382&biw=1241&bih=584> > > > Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no consensus > on whether they are falsifiable. Why do you think that they are > falsifiable? I have made my case, given examples, explained why > evolutionary psych is so seductive and compulsive as a cognitive bias, but > why am I wrong? > > Try it this way. Let's say we are measuring the difference in how long it > takes to recognize a friend versus recognizing a stranger and we find that > there is a clear difference. Which would outcome would evolutionary psych > favor? I could argue that it is clearly more important to identify a > stranger, as they may present a threat to our lives or an opportunity for > trade, security, information, etc. I could equally argue that it is clearly > more important to identify a friend so that we reinforce the bonds of our > social group and foster deep interdependence. I could argue that there > should be no major difference between the times because they are both > important. I could argue that the times should vary according to context. I > could argue that they should not vary according to context as these > functions must be processed beneath the threshold of conscious processing. > > Evolutionary Psychology assumptions can generate plausible interpretations > for any outcome after the fact and offers no particular opinions before the > fact, and that opens the door for at least ambiguous falsifiability in many > cases. > > Craig > > >> >> >> >> 2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:37:35 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >>>> >>>> This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary >>>> pressures: A teleological agent that is executing a violent plan against us >>>> is much more dangerous than a casual accident. >>> >>> >>> Only if there are teleological agents in the first place. There are some >>> people around here who deny that free will is possible. They insist (though >>> I am not sure how, since insisting is already a voluntary act) that our >>> impression that we are agents who can plan and execute plans is another >>> evolutionary consequence. >>> >>> The problem with retrospective evolutionary psychology is that it is >>> unfalsifiable. Any behavior can be plugged into evolution and generate a >>> just-so story from here to there. If the study showed just the opposite - >>> that human beings can't tell the difference between acts of nature and >>> intentional acts, or that it is very slow, why that would make sense too as >>> a consequence of evolutionary pressure as well. You would want to be *sure* >>> that some agent is intentionally harming you lest you falsely turn on a >>> member of your own social group and find yourself cast out. This would >>> validate representational theories of consciousness too - of course it >>> would take longer to reason out esoteric computations of intention than it >>> would take to recognize something so immediately important as being able to >>> discern emotions in others face. That way you could see if someone was >>> angry before they actually started hitting you and have a survival >>> advantage. Evolutionary psychology is its own built in confirmation bias. >>> Not that it has no basis in fact, of course it does, but I can see that it >>> is psychology which is evolving, not evolution which is psychologizing. >>> >>> >>> >>>> because the first will continue harming us, so a fast reaction against >>>> further damage is necessary, while in the case of an accident no stress >>>> response is necessary. (stress responses compromise long term health) >>> >>> >>> Yes, but it's simplistic. There are a lot of things in the environment >>> which are unintentional but continue to harm us which we would be better >>> off developing a detector for. There is no limit to what evolution can be >>> credited with doing - anything goes. If we had a way of immediately >>> detecting which mosquitoes carried malaria, that would make perfect sense. >>> If we could intuitively tell fungus were edible in the forest, that would >>> make sense too. >>> >>> >>>> That distinction may explain the consideration of natural disasters as >>>> teleological: For example earthquakes or storms: The stress response >>>> necessary to react against these phenomena make them much more similar >>>> to teleological plans of unknown agents than mere accidents. >>>> >>> >>> The study shows the opposite though. It shows that we specifically and >>> immediately discern the intentional from the unintentional. The top >>> priority is making that distinction. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hence, it is no surprise that the natural disasters are considered >>>> as teleological and moral . For example, as deliberated acts of the goods >>>> against the corruption of the people, or currently, the response of "the >>>> planet" against the aggression of the immorally rich countries that deplete >>>> the resources. >>>> >>> >>> It's not a bad hypothesis, but I see the more plausible explanation >>> being that by default consciousness is tuned to read meta-personal >>> (super-signifying) meanings as well as personal and sub-personal (logical) >>> meanings. Except for the last few centuries among Western cultures, human >>> consciousness has been universally tuned to the world as animistic and >>> teleological. The normal state of human being is to interpret all events >>> that one experiences as a reflection on one's own efforts, thoughts, etc. >>> This is why religion is such an easy sell to this day. By default, we are >>> superstitious, not necessarily out of evolution, but out of the nature of >>> consciousness itself. Superstition is one of the ways that the psyche >>> detects larger, more diffuse ranges of itself. Intuition taps into longer >>> views of the present - larger 'nows', but at the cost of logic and personal >>> significance. >>> >>> More on the failure of HADD here: >>> http://s33light.org/post/**1499804865<http://s33light.org/post/1499804865> >>> >>> "I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak >>> hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. *To me, >>> it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency >>> detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its >>> source, a subjective agent*. Human culture is nothing if not totemic. >>> Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, sculpture, drama, >>> dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity itself - it’s >>> expression of character and creating stories with them. " >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Craig >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/** >>> msg/everything-list/-/**kWPAfLJdm1EJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ> >>> . >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >>> googlegroups.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>> . >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
