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 <whatsons...@gmail.com>

>
>
> 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 <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
>>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to