My so-called mind is still churning from our conversation about evolutionary atavism, the idea that current behavioral systems may be ill-suited to contemporary circumstances
Hmm, I don't frame EO Wilson's aphorism in natural selection. Assuming *our* conversation is about evolutionary atavism seems one-sided in the dogma and lens of Victorian science. <grin> and :-p ____________________________________________ CEO Founder, Simtable.com [email protected] Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab [email protected] mobile: (505)577-5828 On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 6:07 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > On Evolutionary Atavism > > My so-called mind is still churning from our conversation about > evolutionary atavism, the idea that current behavioral systems may be > ill-suited to contemporary circumstances. As an evolutionary psychologist > I should be for it; however, as a survivor of the instinct wars of the > 1950’s, I should be against it. Where am I? > > The problem with evolutionary atavism arises when people start > attributing any necessity to it. Natural selection would not be possible > if organisms did not offer up structures and behaviors that are > maladapted. Evolution could not have occurred if organisms did not respond > to these maladaptations with adaptive changes. Evolution is a dynamic > between change and stability and the interesting question is why some > things change while others don’t, and why some changes occur more rapidly > than others. Asserting that some things are the same as they were a million > years ago because they didn’t happen to change is just silly. > > Still, evolutionary atavism does play a role in my thinking. Let’s work > an example together and see what that role is and whether it is justified. > I listened with guilty pleasure to Obama’s address ridiculing MAGA > thinking. My pleasure was guilty because I thought his speech would make > Trump more likely to win the election. This conclusion arose from an > evolutionary hypothesis about the origins of charisma. The logic, such as > it is, goes like this. > > > > 1. *The modern human species arose 160kyrs ago from a very small > number of small groups. *That the human species passed through a > severe bottleneck at it inception is probably true; that it was composed of > small group at that time is a plausible surmise. > 2. *Those groups were engaged in intense competition at the > bottleneck. *This statement is reasonable but not supported by any > data I can think of. > 3. *Therefore, they survived or failed as groups. *Again, merely > plausible. > 4. *Those groups survived that were capable of rapid concerted action. > *This is based on the idea that in emergencies it is most important > for every to do some thing, rather than for them to wait and work out the > best thing to do. Barely plausible. Not even clear how one would go > about researching it. > 5. *Groups capable of shifting to an authoritarian organization in > response to a perceived existential threat survived in greater numbers than > those that didn’t.* > 6. *Humans, therefore, are inclined to put their faith in a single > person when they perceive an existential threat. *Let’s call this the > “Charismer Response” > 7. *The person most likely to be selected for this role is apparently > single-minded and decisive. *This gives us the characteristics of a > *Charismer*, > 8. *Charismees relinquish their capacity for independent rational > thought in favor of the Charismer’s decision-making. * > 9. *Charismees receive benefits from the group in proportion to their > demonstrations of surrender of rationality.* > 10. *Charismees demostrate their surrender by the repetition of o or > more flagrantly irrational beliefs. (virgi birth, stole election , etc.)* > 11. *Challenges to these beliefs only increase charismees allegiance > to the group* > 12. *Therefore, Obama should have kept his smarty-pants mouth shut. * > > You all ca*n* evaluate the heuristic, rationality, a*n*d probability of > this argument. I am going to stop *n*ow because my keyboard has stopped > reliably producing “*n’s” * ad is drivig me uts. At best, I think > evolutionary atavism is a source of plausible hypotheses about why > organisms are not adapted to their current circumstances. See some of you > tomorrow. > > Sicerely, > > ick > > > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
