Evolutionary psychology: Why it is on the way out, with last year's magazines

Sharon Begley's critical look at evolutionary psychology in a recent edition of Newsweek is a must-read for anyone interested in the field. She is hardly the first, but the first to have so wide a non-professional audience for a rational, science-based evaluation of the topic. Many of us have regaled ourselves over the years with the distinct pop-culture sound - more lark than lab, more salon than science.

We have learned so much from evolutionary psychology:

- Rape today can be explained because rape was once adaptive and rapists had more kids, so we carry rape genes. (The guys who didn't rape just didn't leave enough kids.) Then some ignorant scientist decided to pull in data from his many years' observation of one of the few remaining groups of people who live much as all humans lived 100 000 years ago. He did not observe rapes, but ran some numbers on the probabilities, based on the lifestyle, and discovered that rape was quite unlikely to be adaptive. Unless a fine collection of spears in one's back is adaptive ...

Begley observes that one hindrance to a scientific assessment of evolutionary psychology has been the moral outrage it provoked. Moral outrage enables the purveyor of silly or pernicious ideas to don the mantle of science, invoke Galileo, and delay the day of reckoning.

But it seems to have stretched as far as it can go because, behind all the posturing, some were counting.

For example (these from Begley's article, and don't let my summary stop you from reading it):

- Is it true that men are genetically adapted to prefer women with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7? That depends on what other qualities are important. Could Barbie work 10 hours a day under a hot sun?

- Are men programmed to neglect or kill their stepchildren? Many such claims relied on social work data gathered for other purposes, and often poorly or prejudicially gathered. Also, and this is a point Mario Beauregard and I made in The Spiritual Brain, the term "stepfather" can sometimes be used very loosely, and one need not assume that the man even intends to stay long.

- The brave warrior gets the girls? Not necessarily. An analysis of the family histories of 95 Amazon warriors showed that women avoid the "badass" guy, who is typically a disaster as a husband, and may trigger a counterraid that gets his family killed.

Begley notes that a growing new approach, behavioral ecology, makes much more sense than evolutionary psychology (BE). BE posits that evolution created the core of human nature as variability and flexibility - the ability to adapt behavior to the environment quickly - and that there is no universal human nature.

I have qualms with this approach, because I think that some features of human nature are universal, other things being equal. The desire for approval comes readily to mind. What there isn't are modules in the brain, created by selfish genes, that can be accounted for by the ways in which the behaviour was adaptive in the Pleistocene era..

But qualms aside, it is nice to see the subject finally leave the salon and get back to the lab.

Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and ...

In "Brain detects happiness more quickly than sadness" (Eurekalert), we learn:

The results, published in the latest issue of the journal Laterality, show that the right hemisphere performs better in processing emotions. "However, this advantage appears to be more evident when it comes to processing happy and surprised faces than sad or frightened ones", the researcher points out.

"Positive expressions, or expressions of approach, are perceived more quickly and more precisely than negative, or withdrawal, ones. So happiness and surprise are processed faster than sadness and fear", explains Aznar-Casanova.

The finding doesn't particularly support the famous "left brain, right brain" thesis, that is so embedded in popular culture that even your cousin, who never reads a book, knows about it.

Two theories are currently "competing" to explain the pattern of cerebral asymmetry in processing emotions. The older one postulates the dominance of the right hemisphere in the processing of emotions, while the second is based on the approach-withdrawal hypothesis, which holds that the pattern of cerebral asymmetry depends upon the emotion in question, in other words that each hemisphere is better at processing particular emotions (the right, withdrawal, and the left, approach).

When we are miserable, we should seek out people we believe to be right-brained (chances are they will intuit our needs), and when we are happy, we should go to the races with people who are left-brained. (And get them to help us decide where to place our bets).

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Daydreaming: Neuroscientist calls it key to creativity, unimaginative boss still calls it loafing

What luck! While others gab around the water cooler, we use our brains better by loafing in the office wondering why the sky is blue (but not bothering to look it up). Daydreaming is actually a useful activity, says neuroscientist Kalina Christoff of the University of British Columbia:

According to Christoff, there are two major networks in the brain: the executive network, involved in problem-solving, reasoning, and “goal-directed deliberate thinking” and the default network, which becomes activated when you’re not doing anything in particular. While only one of the two networks is generally activated at any given time, the study found that when subjects daydreamed or mind-wandered, both networks were activated at the same time.

In theory, that should offer different ways of thinking about a problem.

But if the boss is not sold on this, we must learn to look furiously busy while daydreaming.

CBC's Bob McDonald has a great interview with her on the Saturday science show, Quirks and Quarks (but you must scroll down to find it).

Quantum physics can't network us to the cosmos, physicist insists

In his recent book, Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos and the Search for Meaning, physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger, proposes to set the lay public straight, that our minds are not connected to the cosmos via quantum mechanics.

Stenger, who is also the author of God: The Failed Hypothesis, proposes

... a new kind of deism, which proposes a God who creates a universe with many possible pathways determined by chance, but otherwise does not interfere with the physical world or the lives of humans. Although it is possible, says Stenger, to conceive of such a God who "plays dice with the universe" and leaves no trace of his role as prime mover, such a God is a far cry from traditional religious ideas of God and, in effect, may as well not exist. Like God: The Failed Hypothesis, this new work presents a rigorously argued challenge to many popular notions of God and spirituality.

Now, why oh why do I think that that was the point of the project?

From "New Book: Does Quantum Mechanics Show a Connection Between the Human Mind and The Cosmos?" in Medical News Today (27 June 2009).

One difficulty, of course, is that there are a number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, and some may suit the views he deplores better than others.

Here's a new journal that explores the issue, hopefully with an open mind.

Here are physicist Henry Stapp's reflections, which offer another view.

Empathy: "Hath not a Jew eyes? ..."

A recent article in ScienceDaily, "Less Empathy Toward Outsiders: Brain Differences Reinforce Preferences For Those In Same Social Group" (July 1, 2009) reports that

... perceiving others in pain activates a part of the brain associated with empathy and emotion more if the observer and the observed are the same race. The findings may show that unconscious prejudices against outside groups exist at a basic level.

The study confirms an in-group bias in empathic feelings, something that has long been known but never before confirmed by neuroimaging technology

Published in the Journal of Neuroscience,

... the finding raises as many questions as it answers, Farah said. "For example, is it racial identity per se that determines the brain's empathic response, or some more general measure of similarity between self and other?" she said. "What personal characteristics or life experiences influence the disparity in empathic response toward in-group and out-group members?"

One can think of a few, including slightly dissimilar facial expressions. The researchers chose race as the characteristic to study, but race is rarely a category by itself. It is bound up with class, status, lifestyle expectations, history, and culture. Some other, more tightly specified, category may have been more informative.

Remember Shylock's wrenching plea in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice?

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

- From The Merchant of Venice (III, i, 60-63)

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Free will: Understanding what it means

A friend writes to say:

Logan Gage has a blog post up at ENV that's a must read. He discusses an AEI panel discussion about genes, neuroscience, and free will. Logan points out that the very distinguished panel (including Charles Murray, James. Q. Wilson, and David Brooks, among others) were dumfounded by the moderator's perfectly reasonable question about free will: if we are not entirely determined by our genes and by the environment, what exactly remains that is free? Doesn't the assertion that we are not entirely determined by our genes and environment mean that we have a ... soul?

Logan points out that this philosophical lacuna is the consequence of our abandonment of the concept of the classical understanding of causation, in this case of essence or form. I completely agree. Our abandonment (beginning in the late 17th century) of the classical Aristotelian/Scholastic concept of four causes - material, efficient, formal, and final- and the replacement with a 'Mechanical Philosophy' of only material and efficient causes, has left us unable to explain, understand and defend free will and even the concept of a human being. Philosopher Ed Feser addresses these issues in a great book "The Last Superstition- a Refutation of the New Atheism" which is the best book I've read in many years.

I'd like to think that the new atheism is the last superstition, but I bet it isn't.

Logan's superb post is a must read as well, and I believe that it addresses vital issues in our current debate with materialists/atheists.

Other free will stories.

Service announcement: Privacy policy

Google Advertising Cookie and Privacy Policies Print

(Please note that I am not personally tracking anyone anywhere for any reason.)

What is the DoubleClick DART cookie?

The DoubleClick DART cookie is used by Google in the ads served on publisher websites displaying AdSense for content ads. When users visit an AdSense publisher's website and either view or click on an ad, a cookie may be dropped on that end user's browser. The data gathered from these cookies will be used to help AdSense publishers better serve and manage the ads on their site(s) and across the web.

What should I put in my privacy policy?

Your posted privacy policy should include the following information about Google and the

DoubleClick DART cookie:

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on your site.

Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet.

Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy.

Because publisher sites and laws across countries vary, we're unable to suggest specific privacy policy language. However, you may wish to review resources such as the Network Advertising Initiative, or NAI, which suggests the following language for data collection of non-personally identifying information:

We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
You can find additional information in Appendix A of the NAI Self-Regulatory principles for publishers (PDF). Please note that the NAI may change this sample language at any time.

Neuroscience and science fiction: Can we cure everything by advanced technology?

Jason Rennie's Sci Phi Journal offers Catch!, a short story by Mark Brandon Allen, about how far we can/should go in creating a "world" for a person in a damaged brain state. It is read by Mike Huberty of the band Sunspot. Catch! It if you can.

“Strange how the mind works,” Brad mused. He looked questioningly at the scan technician.

The Ensign smiled at Brad as she continued to work the scanner. “This was the right thing to do,
she said.”

No Spoiler alert.

OFF TOPIC but maybe of interest: Swine flu: Why are nearly all deaths in the developing world?

Here is my most recent MercatorNet column:

Now that the World Health Organization has declared swine flu (virus H1N1) a pandemic, their first since 1968’s Hong Kong flu, we might consider how it emerged.

But first -- Panic Alert: [nonsense avoidance]: People who are not already frail will probably be sick for about 48 hours if they get swine flu. They will not likely die. Symptoms are typical flu symptoms. When visiting anyone in frail health, please observe all sanitary precautions that medical authorities advise, especially if the frail person is in a hospital already. Shouldn’t that tell us something?

So let’s not panic. The main message is, in a global society, we cannot have completely different health standards on the same continent. Now let’s talk about two cities -- Mexico City and Winnipeg, Canada, where the virus was first identified.

Health care differs greatly between the two. In Winnipeg, every sick person — rich or poor — just goes to “the hospital,” and is examined by a nurse practitioner and/or a physician who can order lab tests and a ward bed -- in an isolation unit, if necessary. It’s all tax-supported, so no one goes bankrupt using the system.

But it is all different in Mexico.

Yes, it is a tale of the difference between Canada and Mexico. Read more here.

Psychology: Don't think about it, and you probably won't do it

In a New Yorker article titled admirably simply, "Don’t!" The secret of self-control,
Jonah Lehrer reflects on what investigators have learned about how children develop self-control:

At the time, psychologists assumed that children's ability to wait depended on how badly they wanted the marshmallow. But it soon became obvious that every child craved the extra treat. What, then, determined self-control? Mischel's conclusion, based on hundreds of hours of observation, was that the crucial skill was the "strategic allocation of attention."

In other words, focus of attention.

Instead of getting obsessed with the marshmallow - the "hot stimulus" - the patient children distracted themselves by covering their eyes, pretending to play hide-and-seek underneath the desk, or singing songs from "Sesame Street." Their desire wasn't defeated - it was merely forgotten. "If you're thinking about the marshmallow and how delicious it is, then you’re going to eat it," Mischel says. "The key is to avoid thinking about it in the first place."

In adults, this skill is often referred to as metacognition, or thinking about thinking, and it’s what allows people to outsmart their shortcomings. ... Mischel’s large data set from various studies allowed him to see that children with a more accurate understanding of the workings of self-control were better able to delay gratification. "What's interesting about four-year-olds is that they're just figuring out the rules of thinking," Mischel says. "The kids who couldn’t delay would often have the rules backwards. They would think that the best way to resist the marshmallow is to stare right at it, to keep a close eye on the goal. But that's a terrible idea. If you do that, you’re going to ring the bell before I leave the room."

In the adult world, this need for focus of attention is one key reason for the millennia-old practice of religious retreats.

People often say they are going to make more time from their work day to think about the meaning of life. But do they? No, because they can't. They can't stop looking at the In Tray, the way many kids looked at the marshmallow.

Now just put that same person in a room with a chair, a desk, and a work by a serious spiritual writer - and NO phone, e-mail, or visitors - and many people begin to see key patterns in their lives that they had never noticed before. The trick is, as the kids discovered, to lose sight of the marshmallows of life.

Consciousness: Conference offers challenging new ideas

The Metanexus Institute offers an interesting sounding conference July 18-21 in Phoenix, Arizona, details here: A number of the speakers seem to want to develop a theory of consciousness that is materialist but does not fall into the "there is no self and no free will" trap. Eric Weislogel writes, reviewing a book:

Campbell is one of many proponents of non-reductive physicalism. Non-reductive physicalism is purportedly an alternative to reductive physicalism, but one which does not revert to dualism. It is best not to think of non-reductive physicalism as a theory in its own right. Think, instead, of non-reductive physicalism as a disideratum, as a standard by which to judge how satisfactory to our intuitions is any particular theory of mental causation. The tenets of non-reductive physicalism represent our basic intellectual commitments going into the question from the start. What are those tenets?

First, there is the commitment to non-reductionist explanations of consciousness, of mental states, and of mental causality. We will not be satisfied with any theory that explains away thought, consciousness, intentionality, desire, creativity, or moral responsibility as mere illusion. We are committed, for example, to the idea that our wanting a drink is causally connected to our getting a drink. We are committed to the idea that our desire for that which is not our own is causally connected to our stealing that thing and that we are responsible for that theft.

So he wants to maintain that the self and free will really exist, but that a materialist account of them can ultimately work.

That I doubt. The whole point of materialist accounts is reductive.

Here is an explanation: If I offer to explain why ants feed and defend their queen instead of killing and eating her, you will not value my explanation if I describe their actions as guided by loyalty. You likely doubt that ant minds host such a concept. You want a reductive explanation.

However, most people think that "loyalty" might be an actual cause of human behaviour. Yet loyalty is an abstract concept. Any approach that attempts to explain loyalty in a material or physical way will end up being reductive, no matter how the explainer talks around the point.

Now, there is, ofc ourse, a difference between being reductive and being vulgar. A "selfish gene" explanation for loyalty is vulgar as well as reductive.

I am glad these cognitive philosophers as so anxious to avoid the Gadarene descent into vulgarity chronicled in - and illustrated by - the pop science media.

Consciousness: Is there no such thing as a self?

A friend draws my attention to this musing by Bradlaugh at "Secular Right: Reality & Reason" on Thomas Metzinger's new book, The Ego Tunnel, which I have not yet read. Bradlaugh quotes,

We may no longer be able to regard our own consciousness as a legitimate vehicle for our metaphysical hopes and desires. … Max Weber famously spoke of the “disenchantment of the world,” as rationalization and science led Europe and America into modern industrial society, pushing back religion and all “magical” theories about reality. Now we are witnessing the disenchantment of the self.

One of the many dangers in this process is that if we remove the magic from our image of ourselves, we may also remove it from our image of others. We could become disenchanted with one another …

Hmmm. I get disenchanted with other people all the time, as I assume they do with me. However, I am pretty sure that's not what the philosopher means. Here's Publishers Weekly:

Consciousness, mind, brain, self: the relations among these four entities are explored by German cognitive scientist and theoretical philosopher Metzinger, who argues that, in fact, there is no such thing as a self.

If so, Metzinger seems to be adopting the same strategy as Alva Noe, whom I have read and reviewed, noting,

Noë seems to want to move away from reductive explanations, but not away from the materialism that underlies them. So he ends up with non-reductive explanations that still don’t explain. By the time he ends up arguing that most human language is like dogs barking, he sounds like the people he critiques.

Given that there is no reductive way of understanding consciousness or self, the temptation to deny their existence beckons.

But what, then denies its existence? A self must exist in order to deny itself. I am told that Metzinger makes the intriguing suggestion that consciousness limits what we can experience, which is surely correct because we can only experience by focusing, and focusing excludes far more than it includes.

Religion: Why did the pig become so unpopular?

Recently, a friend alerted me to an item of junk called "Clean Conservatives and Filthy Liberals" that I can no longer find online. It may have been a gag, or perhaps a riposte to some other junk, like this ("From the Iszatso? dept: Thoughts from Sharon Begley on "liberal" vs. "conservative" brains ")

Anyway, gag or not, it raised some interesting questions for me, one of which is how some animals come to be forbidden food. Obviously, most devout people are just going to follow their religion's guidance in these matters, but sometimes there is more to the story. I am thinking of the interesting case of the pig in the Middle East.

Years ago, an author pointed out in a book on economics that pigs differ from most animals kept anciently in those regions because they are not multipurpose. I quickly made a list of factors that he mentioned, plus a few others:

1. Pigs compete directly with humans for food. (Most agricultural animals do not compete directly with humans for food, because they can eat things humans cannot.)

2. Pigs drink a lot of water. That is inconvenient in a dry environment.

3. Pigs cannot be milked.

4. You cannot ride a pig.

5. Pigs cannot be used as pack animals.

6. Pigs do not pull carts.

7. Pig skin is useful as leather, but it is not a fleece.

8. Stampeding pigs may trample their keepers. (You’re lucky if they just run off a cliff in that case, as in a famous incident in the New Testament.)

9. Pigs can give humans diseases like “swine flu.”

10. It is difficult to develop a relationship with an adult pig, unlike say, a horse or donkey.

So, if people who live in a semi-desert environment are not going to eat an animal for religious reasons, to demonstrate their faith, it may as well be the poor old pig. Perhaps he isn't quite as bad as his reputation, but he is too ecologically expensive for many environments.