On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:33:26 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
> 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
>> 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.
> There is no feminization nor masculinization other than we would see in 
> any other specie responding to different situations. 

There is a lot going on with feminization and masculinization in humans 
(and apparently in some amphibians and reptiles too) in recent years. I'm 
not sure what situations you are referring to, but if you aren't aware, 
gender no longer a binary distinction, especially for the under 30 crowd.

> Oh ah, I understand. This is not the right use of evolution, that is, on 
> the left side of politics. Because I say, and natural selection says that 
> men and women have a nature instead of having none -

The nature of men and women is precisely what has evolved. Are you 
postulating some gender-spirit which operates outside of evolution, guiding 
it into perfect divine forms?

> so the leftist friends can engineer man at   their arbitrary pleasure- , 
> I´m being eugenesist (??) and a bad guy. 

No, I made a specific point of saying that I am not accusing your view of 
being bad or immoral, just simplistic to the point of being factually 
incorrect. Eugenics isn't wrong just because it is evil to pass judgment on 
the unborn, but because heredity is not an adequate explanation of human 

> I see that the times when EO. Wilson was insulted, aggressively molested 
> and expelled from universitary conferences are not over. Still the same 
> rejection for the same ideological reasons. 

No ideology here, only scientific questioning based on real experiences 
rather than assumptions.

>>> 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.
> Gender is an invention of evolution?

Are you questioning that? You are aware that some species reproduce 
asexually, and that many species exist without pronounced sexual 
dimorphism. If we had evolved from nudibranchs instead of primate 
ancestors, we, like them, would be simultaneous hermaphrodites*.* In that 
case, we could be living on a planet where the whole idea of gender is 

>  the whole you are.  Wether evolution is or not the invention of a Creator 
> or not, evolution (natural selection) gave us a nature. 

It's circular to say that NATURAL selection precedes NATURE.

> I´m sorry for the liberals, but this includes everything in you. You can 
> reject to look straigh at it and  look at the exceptions,  some of them 
> flawed, some of them easily explainable, but the science will stay in front 
> of you waiting for you to look at it.

Sounds like some ideological mumblings but I'm not sure what they mean or 
what they have to do with clarifying the role of evolution in psychology.

>>> 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 unintentional.
> They are called phisical, laws, game theory, computation science, 
> evolutionary game theory, fitness landscapes, genetics, genetic drift, 
> multilevel selection.... Of course the productos of evolution are 
> historical, but the laws tell you what combinations of characteristics are 
> not possible whatsoever.

All laws and theories are a posteriori analyses of what we can observe and 
simplify, not a priori templates which are inevitable in all possible 

>> 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.
>> The appreciation of beauty is clearly an adaptation. 

Circular reasoning. You are saying that beauty exists because we appreciate 

> We perceive as beatiful what was adaptively relevant for our survival in 
> the past.

A seductive over-simplification. By that logic, we should see poison plants 
as remarkably ugly and manure as gorgeous, as it provides fuel and 
fertilizer. Even if there were such a correspondence without exception 
though, it explains absolutely nothing about how or why beauty would 
appear. It is like saying that a rock would be attracted to rolling 

> This happens with our higher and lower capacities. For that matter we have 
> a common architecture of the mind, and we share the same (adaptive) 
> concepts so we can communicate in abstract ways about beauty, love, 
> freedom,  loyalty and so on. 

Yet we feel more compelled to focus on our personal preferences than we do 
in generic commonalities.


>>> 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>>>> 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<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/
>>>>>> **ms**g/everything-list/-/**FYDu8tOgYS**cJ<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<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ>
>>>> .
>>>> 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/-/O-ReuewEZGgJ.
>> 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