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
The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that
point at you may be a treat. it
2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>> Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are
> 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
>> 2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>> More on the failure of HADD here:
>>> "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. "
>>> 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/**
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at