Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the psychological case for Evolution
tomato
Member (Idle past 4303 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 1 of 46 (530746)
10-14-2009 6:03 PM


Are children born good or evil? Religious zealots on both sides of this question have wrought considerable damage. Caretakers believing that children are "created in God's image" have allowed children to misbehave for fear of suppressing their natural vivaciousness. Caretakers believing that children are "conceived in Original Sin" have assumed malevolent motives on their charges and thereby taken an unnecessarily offensive stance.
Since both views have their drawbacks, perhaps evolutionary psychology holds the answer to this question. Before reading further, I would like for you to take a sheet of paper and answer these four questions:
1. What is good for children and attractive to children?
2. What is good for children but unattractive to children?
3. What is harmful to children but attractive to children?
4. What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?
Most likely, you were able to list items for all four questions. The created-in-God's-image party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 1 and 4. The conceived-in-Original-Sin party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 2 and 3. John Locke, who held that a child was born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, cannot be right; otherwise there would not be any items in reply to any of the questions.
So let us look at the items which we came up with.
For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probably listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, and the milk bottle.
For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you probably listed school, sour medicine, and penicillin shots.
For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you probably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, and illegal drugs.
For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.
What does this tell us, then? This tells us that children are born neither good nor evil, but are born for survival in our distant past.
Numerous questions about human behavior can be reduced to evolutionary psychology. Why do we bang our fists on the table when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our early days as land animals. Why do we stamp our feet when we are angry? Likely for the same reason. Why do we grit our teeth when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our days in the sea.
Evolutionary psychology can also explain gender differences. Why do men consider it disgraceful to ask for directions? Likely because they consider it an affront to their hunting skills. Why do men try to hide their emotions? Likely because they still consider themselves hunters and warriors.
Why are men quickly attracted to women whereas women tend to become attracted more slowly? Likely because a wrong choice for a prehistoric woman carried more serious consequences than a wrong choice for a prehistoric man. It is only a man's outer brains which understand such concepts as "alimony," "child support," and "skip traces," not his inner brain.
Tribal behavior manifests itself in modern times. Why do we playfully hit and punch each other? Likely as a rehearsal for a confrontation with a real enemy. Why does every community brag about its major industries, its major institutes of higher learning, or its famous citizens? Likely because the citizens regard themselves as fellow tribesmen.
Every once in a while, we hear a scientist say "All branches of science point to Evolution--geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology. . ." I realize psychology isn't an exact science, but I wish they would say "psychology," too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 7:24 AM tomato has replied
 Message 6 by caffeine, posted 10-16-2009 5:43 AM tomato has replied
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 10:47 AM tomato has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 46 (530755)
10-14-2009 6:35 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the the psychological case for Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 46 (530830)
10-15-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-14-2009 6:03 PM


Naturalistic Fallacy?
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.
I think you are in danger of falling into the naturalistic fallacy. Just becuase something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is "good". Evolutionary psychology may well be able to shed some light on why we think the way that we do and why we behave the way that we do. But I am concerned that this can get conflated with judgements on how we ought to behave.
I think we should consider what we deem to be "good" or "bad" on the more rational and sophisticated criteria that relate to achieving the sort of society that we want to live in.
Every once in a while, we hear a scientist say "All branches of science point to Evolution--geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology. . ." I realize psychology isn't an exact science, but I wish they would say "psychology," too.
I guess the problem psychology has is that it is exceptionally difficult to make verifiable predictions. We can explain observed phenomenon in terms of evolutionary psychology but this all too often seems like making the theory fit the facts. The true test of any scientific theory, the real clincher, is when newly discovered facts perfectly match theory (i.e. specific predictions). I am quite interetsed in evolutionary psychology (well, at least to the extent that I have read books by Pinker, Robert Wright etc.) but even I think a lot of it amounts to hand waving, conjecture and no small amount of very subjective interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-14-2009 6:03 PM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by tomato, posted 10-15-2009 8:18 AM Straggler has replied

  
tomato
Member (Idle past 4303 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 4 of 46 (530838)
10-15-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Straggler
10-15-2009 7:24 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
"Just becuase something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is "good"."
If I don't realize that, then why do I list items under Questions 2 and 3?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 7:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 9:00 AM tomato has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 5 of 46 (530847)
10-15-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tomato
10-15-2009 8:18 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
Tomato in the OP writes:
For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probably listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, and the milk bottle.
For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you probably listed school, sour medicine, and penicillin shots.
For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you probably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, and illegal drugs.
For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.
Tomato in the OP writes:
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.
Straggler writes:
"Just becuase something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is "good".
Tomato writes:
If I don't realize that, then why do I list items under Questions 2 and 3?
OK. And I am not particularly disagreeing with your conclusions. I am simply pointing out that using phrases like "wrong direction" or "right direction" in this context presuposes some value judgements. Value judgements that I think you are potentially in danger of making on the basis of the naturalistic fallacy.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tomato, posted 10-15-2009 8:18 AM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:21 AM Straggler has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 6 of 46 (531093)
10-16-2009 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-14-2009 6:03 PM


Children not knowing what's best for them
For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.
I have never seen any indication that wild animals, sharp objects or high places are unattractive to children. Particularly the animals bit - I loved animals as a kid. I don't have flash on this computer, so I can't be certain, but I think that this is the video I'm thinking of. Do you see any sign here that the baby is at all perturbed by the venomous snake (it's been defanged, but I doubt this factors into the child's reasoning)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-14-2009 6:03 PM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:24 AM caffeine has replied

  
tomato
Member (Idle past 4303 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 7 of 46 (531095)
10-16-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
10-15-2009 9:00 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
Sorry. I thought that from the context, you could see that "in the right direction" meant "desirable in modern society" and "in the wrong direction" meant "undesirable in modern society."
As for what is praiseworthy and blameworthy in the mind of God, I shall leave that question to experts such as Pat Robertson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 9:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2009 8:40 AM tomato has replied

  
tomato
Member (Idle past 4303 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 8 of 46 (531096)
10-16-2009 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by caffeine
10-16-2009 5:43 AM


Re: Children not knowing what's best for them
Okay, so maybe it's not all nature and some of it is nurture.
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were fed to the lions.
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were fed to the lions.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
Edited by tomato, : No reason given.
Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by caffeine, posted 10-16-2009 5:43 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2009 9:23 AM tomato has not replied
 Message 19 by caffeine, posted 10-19-2009 5:21 AM tomato has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 46 (531118)
10-16-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by tomato
10-16-2009 6:21 AM


Re: Naturalistic Fallacy?
Straggler writes:
OK. And I am not particularly disagreeing with your conclusions. I am simply pointing out that using phrases like "wrong direction" or "right direction" in this context presuposes some value judgements. Value judgements that I think you are potentially in danger of making on the basis of the naturalistic fallacy.
Sorry. I thought that from the context, you could see that "in the right direction" meant "desirable in modern society" and "in the wrong direction" meant "undesirable in modern society."
The unthinking consensus in modern society is highly prone to the naturalistic fallacy.
As for what is praiseworthy and blameworthy in the mind of God, I shall leave that question to experts such as Pat Robertson.
I am not sure where this fits into anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:21 AM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 5:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 46 (531139)
10-16-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by tomato
10-16-2009 6:24 AM


Point Unclear
Are you saying children are instinctively afraid of natural things but learn to be afraid of unnatural things?
Okay, so maybe it's not all nature and some of it is nurture.
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were fed to the lions.
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were fed to the lions.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
To paraphrase:
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were attacked by bulldozers. Bulldozer - Wikipedia
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were attacked by bulldozers.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 6:24 AM tomato has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 46 (531158)
10-16-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomato
10-14-2009 6:03 PM


Are children born good or evil?
Yes, but they can be nutured either way.
Religious zealots on both sides of this question have wrought considerable damage. Caretakers believing that children are "created in God's image" have allowed children to misbehave for fear of suppressing their natural vivaciousness. Caretakers believing that children are "conceived in Original Sin" have assumed malevolent motives on their charges and thereby taken an unnecessarily offensive stance.
Wierd. Why so compartmentalized and black and white? Isn't it more likely that things are a blend of both? And what about people who believe that children are created in God's image and are also conceived in original sin? I think you're being too generalizing.
Since both views have their drawbacks, perhaps evolutionary psychology holds the answer to this question. Before reading further, I would like for you to take a sheet of paper and answer these four questions:
I'll just list the first thing that pops into my head.
1. What is good for children and attractive to children?
exercise
2. What is good for children but unattractive to children?
broccoli
3. What is harmful to children but attractive to children?
fire
4. What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?
spiders
Most likely, you were able to list items for all four questions.
FWIW, #4 took the longest
The created-in-God's-image party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 1 and 4.
Not necessarily. Even though we were created in god's image, original sin has allowed for items in 2 and 3.
The conceived-in-Original-Sin party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 2 and 3.
Only if they believe that original sin is all encompasing and leaves no room for some good things.
John Locke, who held that a child was born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, cannot be right; otherwise there would not be any items in reply to any of the questions.
Unless a blank slate can have instincts...
I don't find any of your above claims to be accurate. Can you support them further?
So let us look at the items which we came up with.
For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probably listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, and the milk bottle.
For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you probably listed school, sour medicine, and penicillin shots.
For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you probably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, and illegal drugs.
For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.
I dunno about "exercise"... is that "found in nature"?
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.
Hrm... broccoli and fire... nope.
What does this tell us, then? This tells us that children are born neither good nor evil, but are born for survival in our distant past.
Non-sequitor. I agree that they are "born for survival" a little bit but I don't think that conclusion follows from your argument.
Numerous questions about human behavior can be reduced to evolutionary psychology. Why do we bang our fists on the table when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our early days as land animals. Why do we stamp our feet when we are angry? Likely for the same reason. Why do we grit our teeth when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our days in the sea.
But it just sounds like you are making those up as ad hoc explanations.
For example, gritting our teeth when we're angry is more likely us showing our teeth in anger like other animals do:
even dogs do it:
So... how do we prove who's guess is more accurate? Yours or mine? How can we test these hypotheses?
Evolutionary psychology can also explain gender differences. Why do men consider it disgraceful to ask for directions? Likely because they consider it an affront to their hunting skills.
Seriously? No offense, but it sounds like your just making up reasons. Like apologetics.
Every once in a while, we hear a scientist say "All branches of science point to Evolution--geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology. . ." I realize psychology isn't an exact science, but I wish they would say "psychology," too.
Meh, I'm not convinced.
I don't see psychology, all on its own merits, pointing to evolution here.
I see ad hoc explanations for psychology apologetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomato, posted 10-14-2009 6:03 PM tomato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 10-16-2009 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
tomato
Member (Idle past 4303 days)
Posts: 39
Joined: 10-11-2009


Message 12 of 46 (531160)
10-16-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 10:47 AM


So? What's wrong with hypotheses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:08 AM tomato has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 46 (531162)
10-16-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by tomato
10-16-2009 10:57 AM


The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by tomato, posted 10-16-2009 10:57 AM tomato has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 46 (531169)
10-16-2009 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 10:47 AM


Hrm... broccoli and fire... nope.
Just a thought - but there are reasons why your choices are not quite what they seem. I have encountered very very few naturally occurring fires. Those that are likely to be noticed by anybody are usually very large, and children are not particularly attracted to large fires. They do pay them a lot of attention - they don't charge into them.
Broccoli is a specific. Children are not attracted to greens in general. And if you take a look around you'll probably notice a fair amount of greens that are poisonous - which may, or may not, be a factor. Oh - and it should also be pointed out that broccoli is actually a modern invention (probably by the Romans about 2,000 years ago).
So as far as I can tell fires and broccoli are not things that are common in our evolutionary past. Common access to flames and broccoli is quite modern.
I dunno about "exercise"... is that "found in nature"?
Yes - kids naturally play - and not just human children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:58 AM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 46 (531178)
10-16-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
10-16-2009 11:23 AM


So as far as I can tell fires and broccoli are not things that are common in our evolutionary past. Common access to flames and broccoli is quite modern.
Yeah, you're right.
And for further support, back in the day when fat and sugar was scarse we developed our now-too-much desire for sweet and fatty foods.
But what does that have to do with:
quote:
What does this tell us, then? This tells us that children are born neither good nor evil, but are born for survival in our distant past.
You could be "born for survival" while being inherently good or evil. I guess I just don't get it, what he's really trying to say.
I dunno about "exercise"... is that "found in nature"?
Yes - kids naturally play - and not just human children.
Yeah, i realized that... I was more questioning how he's using the words. He said they were 'items found in nature' and I lost some clarity there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 10-16-2009 11:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 10-16-2009 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 23 by tomato, posted 10-19-2009 6:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024