When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?

I don't think I would call myself 'pale.' I do prefer women with very white skin. This is especially attractive against the background of black hair. It's an old-fashioned aesthetic preference.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-22-2006 10:44 PM

Maybe you are just into goth chicks!

Maybe I should check that out.

Your talking about psychiatrists. I am talking about psychology, not medicine.

I was suprised to see this topic drifted into discussions where several posters have asserted some sort of Evolutionary Psychological explanation for attraction. Indeed by some posters I have asked to offer scientific evidence for such things in the past, and who consequently disappeared. I am beginning to wonder if Evo Psych is a mental disorder. I mean I see the assertions being made and references to studies having been done. Yet when I actually try to pin anyone down on these studies, and actually discuss these studies in a sober fashion, no one is willing to do so? Is this not irrational?The FACT is that while it sounds plausible, there are no studies which show actual genetic... or more importantly evolutionary... forces working on us in the manners described. The FACT is that while some members of the psychological community are advancing such theories, not everyone... and I would doubt the majority... in the psychological community are accepting of such speculative science. Even some of its initial "creators" are skeptical and dismissive of the types of comments made by posters here (and theorists such as Pink who have been championed by at least one of the posters here).While it is clear that evolution has driven us to be sexual beings, it is quite unclear how any person specifies what they find attractive, and it may have little to nothing to do with evolutionary pressures, specifically regarding genes of offspring or a mate. Given that our brains have been freed from strictly instinctual behavior, many of our behaviors may be more or less results of a system which must organize itself within unique environments (for each individual). Immediate cost/benefits, from a single lifetime experience.The best which can be said is that there may be common cues, such as excitement regarding asses or breasts (though schraf's idea that breasts are a recent sexual advancement via evolution is specious). Even seeking out similarity is not wholly common, and where it is seen may have nothing to do with passing on similar genes. It could be that people have a drive to stick with their own kind based wholly on personal survival.Being attracted to others with similar features would increase cohesion and group power over other groups. Being attracted to people from other groups, those not looking like onesself, would result (evolutionarily since this would extend back before people could travel widely and freely) in people having a hard time trying to find a mate, scattering of a group (which is not advantageous), and likely being being attacked as an outsider by another group. All of that is equally evolutionary in explanation, yet has nothing to do with sexual selection criteria (having better babies through similar genes).I would love to hear a real explanation for why couples choose partners that look like themselves when interracial relationships are common and inherently negate that concept. I guess there will be some equally "evolutionary" explanation for that, yet no rationale why such prefs are not seen to move genetically through a population (which is what we should see if these are in fact evolutionarily driven).If people want, I will bump (yet again) the outstanding threads I have on Evo Psych. They deal with these specific issues and are awaiting answers. In fact they look at at least one of the "top" studies out of evo psych regarding such a drive, and no one has bothered to defend the criticisms presented.If no one is going to do that, how about at least supplying these wonderful studies suggested as existing and acceptable to the field of psychology as scientific. That way people here can judge for themselves what scientific merit and backing, these present assertions have.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-24-2006 11:25 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Yes, one can always come up with an evolutionary reason for one's likes and dislikes. It's suspiciously easy.

I guess I'm curious. Is it that you're ignorant of the large numbers of studies that, to me, seem to show exactly this; or is it that you reject them all off-hand for one reason or another?Mate choice is not statistically random. The way people choose mats statistically correlates with certain reproductive advantages that they don't tend to be aware of. I don't find these facts disputable and the conclusion from them is obvious. Where am I going wrong? If you're refering to theories that evolution controls our minds, you're right - nobody is advancing such a theory, either here or in the scientific community.But, hey, you know. Whatever. Human beings, like everything else, are the product of 3 billion years of evolution - but we're the one single species whose behavior is absolutly unaffected by that. Sure. That's completely reasonable, isn't it? People travel for many reasons. Probably none of them are mate choice. But mating with a member of the group does generally include one into the group. That's the oldest story in the world. How common? 1 in 5? 1 in 20? And what's a "race", exactly? I'm italian and my wife is swedish. Are we interracial? To some, we are.Also, I really appreciated the inference that anybody that disagrees with your position has a mental disorder. That's a technique first popularized by anti-semite conservative talk-show host Michael Savage, by the way. Maybe the reason nobody takes your evo-psych threads seriosuly, or cares to do your homework for you, is because you predicate your entire line of argumentation on an enormous ad-hominem: "my opponents must be mentally insane."

And what's the alternative explanation? If likes and dislikes were random, people wouldn't largely have the same likes and dislikes.Or did you think that they didn't? That people's preferences were randomly distributed? The fact that advertising works proves you wrong. If people's preferences weren't almost entirely predictable corporations would be spending millions every month to try to sell us something they think we'll like.

Perhaps some of these likings are not subjective. Take beauty, for example. Perhaps it's an objective quality of some things or beings.That would account for the predictability. A few people might be beauty-blind as some people are color-blind.If I say, "This woman is beautiful," maybe that's like saying, "This grass is green."

Yes, I am wholly ignorant of studies which have shown this with any scientific merit. You may present any you know of within the thread I started on the subject. I have an example critique of one study in that other thread. Yes all I have seen I have rejected for one reason or another. These reasons have been valid ones.Are you unaware that there are many scientists both in evolutionary and psychological fields which submit the same criticisms I have? First I would ask to see a study indicating that mate choice is objectively not statistically random, much less that it is keyed to factors which MUST be related to reproductive advantage rather than other more immediate factors which might be confounded with the same.Where you are going wrong is believing that two sets of correlations indicate some sort of actual relationship. They do not. It could be nothing more than a coincidence, though more likely just a confounding of several different factors which scale along the same lines. I didn't say we are wholly unaffected by evolution. I am suggesting there is great difficulty in determining whether a specific behavior is a result of evolutionary selection to solve a specific environmental issue.This is made particularly difficult for humans whose brain functions are patently different than those of other species. That is indeed one of the major differences between us and other animals. Our brains have a higher capacity for adaptation to immediate environment and less reliance on hardwired reactions mandated by genetic code to form them. This is a question for you to answer with some scientific evidence. You are the one who suggested that science has shown people choose mates with similar features in order to improve genetic outcomes. Heheheh... look above at the thread title. I was riffing on the title of the thread. That is patently untrue. I challenge you to find where in the posts I criticized EP papers that I made an adhominem argument, much less that that is all I engaged in.Of course what could be easier is to simply present a study which supports EP claims. People do this all the time here for those in the creo crowd no matter how much ad hominem they might include, and it is not "doing their homework". Yet this is so hard for supporters of EP? I might add I have more than done my homework I have read more than a few studies at this point and have a detailed response waiting for discussion on at least one of them.I riffed on the title because contrary to your own claim, many EPers are willing to not deal with evidence and instead resort to name calling, or simply disappear. This shows some amount of irrational attachment to a theory.You can surprise me by soberly showing evidence along the same lines others have regarding other evolution based research.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Ok. How is beauty detected? Is beauty a wave or a particle?

I don't see anything here that I can't reply to in the other thread. Hopefully that's fine.

Feminine beauty is probably a wave, don't you think?

quote:

---

Feminine beauty is probably a wave, don't you think?

---

This didn't contribute to the topic, but I had to smile when I read it.Good one.

I had to smile too.