On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:41:04 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
> You are mixing species. The human specie has his nature. The sea horse, as 
> fine as it is, has another. human males are more aggresive for the same 
> reason that sea horse females are aggressive too: the other sex does the 
> heavier effort in caring for the eggs and thus are the scarce resource for 
> which the other sex has to fight and is the less prone to risk taking, 
> something that is evident by a short game theoretical reasoning.  As simple 
> as that.

It's not that simple at all. Human males vary in their aggressiveness from 
individual to individual, family to family, culture to culture, and 
situation to situation. Had a comet wiped out Homo sapiens from one part of 
Africa which had more aggressive males, then we might now identify females 
with aggressiveness. Even in the last few years gender has changed 
significantly as males have become more feminized in certain ways and 
females have be come more masculine in certain ways. Certainly some of what 
you are saying has truth to it, but it's neither a reliable nor 
particularly important way to derive truth. It's a simplification which 
really is inseparable ultimately with eugenics - which I don't say to put 
the idea down as immoral, only to show that mechanistic views of 
anthropology are inherently and inevitably fallacious.

> I was not present in the holocene or whathever in the creatacic  during 
> the millions of years when sea horses switched slowly their male female 
> roles, but this reasoning can be done here and now with the same accuracy.

You make it sound like gender roles are something which exist as some kind 
of objective property. Gender is an invention of evolution. Its roles are 
situational and relativistic. Whether what is secreted by a gland is more 
egg-like or more sperm-like really has no inherent role attached to it. 
Males take care of the kids in some species and in some families. Sometimes 
nobody takes care of the kids.

> Evolution is not random . It has rules. 

The rules are called natural selection. They aren't rules though, they are 
consequences of actual experiences and conditions, some intentional, some 

> Evolutionary biology has made wonderful discoveries about animal 
> behaviour. E.O Wilson the founder of sociobiology predicted that if a 
> mammal would be found that has social insect organization (with a single 
> reproductive Queen) It would be in tropical humid climate and living in the 
> underground. Sorty after, a specie of rodent according with this 
> description was found.

I'm not knocking evolutionary biology, I'm knocking what Raymond Tallis 
calls Darwinitis - the compulsive application of generic evolutionary 
simplifications to all features of human consciousness. Just because we 
enjoy beautiful mates doesn't mean that the mating function can somehow 
generate beauty to optimize its activities.


> 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>> 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.
>> It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that we 
>> are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story land. 
>> There are some species where the females are more aggressive ( 
>> http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html  ) - does that 
>> mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of 
>> the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more 
>> aggressive females than males should call into question any functionalist 
>> theories based on gender, and if gender in general doesn't say anything 
>> very reliable about psychology, then why should we place much value on any 
>> of these kinds of assumptions.
>> Evolution is not teleological, it is the opposite. Who we are is a 
>> function of the specific experiences of specific individuals who were lucky 
>> in specific circumstances. That's it. There's no explanatory power in 
>> sweeping generalizations which credit evolution with particular 
>> psychological strategies. Sometimes behaviors are broadly adaptive 
>> species-wide, and sometimes they are incidental, and it is nearly 
>> impossible to tell them apart, especially thousands of years after the fact.
>> Craig
>>> The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that 
>>> point at you may be a treat. it
>>> 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@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.,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/**14998**
>>>>>> 04865 <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/
>>>>>> **ms**g/everything-list/-/**kWPAfLJdm1**EJ<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<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ>
>>>> .
>>>> 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/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to