Did men evolve navigation skill to find mates?

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Also: Fuck evolutionary psychology/behaviourism/whatever. It's the biggest crock of shit after theism, fascism and lolbertardianism.

A bad case of throwing a perfectly healthy baby out with the bath water, as well as lumping lumping evolutionary psychology with the diametrically opposed position of behaviourism, the ultimate believer in a squeaky clean slate...

Some of the output of evolutionary psychology consists of highly speculative "just-so" stories, and some of its advocates have cozied up to some rather disreputable political positions. However, our long passage through evolutionary time has not just left its mark on our bodies, but at least some aspects of our minds. Enough studies using clear-cut evidence have shown that our "slate", for all the writing via experience as we grow, has a rich and complex internal structure that reflects our hominid heritage, one that developed through the millennia of harsh life in small tribes confronting a dangerous environment.

[Hermit]

What I meant was evolutionary psychology, evolutionary behaviourism, evolutionary whatever, and I do agree that evolution has left its mark on at least some aspects of our minds, but from a sociological point of view evolutionary whatever explains nothing. We have an inextinguishable instinct to rape because, you know, evolution, huh? Sam Harris is particularly full of crackpot just so rationalisations, what with his explanations how moral, ethical and even aesthetic values in our societies are derived from our evolutionary development.

[JimC]

Clearly, if evolutionary explanations are used to justify or allow criminal, unethical behaviour then it is a mis-use of science. Evolutionary science may illuminate the often murky undergrowth of the human condition, but it says nothing useful about the moral and ethical "oughts".

However, in the quote "moral, ethical and even aesthetic values in our societies are derived from our evolutionary development", if we changed "derived from" to "influenced by". there is nothing controversial or alarming in such a broad statement.

[Hermit]

However, in the quote "moral, ethical and even aesthetic values in our societies are derived from our evolutionary development", if we changed "derived from" to "influenced by". there is nothing controversial or alarming in such a broad statement.

What's the difference? Sam Harris gave a TED talk a few years back, which tied in quite handily with his soon to be published book on the subject of, among other things, aesthetics. At one stage he claimed that we appreciate paintings of wooded mountains, lakes and trees with clear two metre trunks from an aesthetic point of view because wooded mountains are great for hunting, water is essential for survival and those trees are ideal for climbing up to escape from pursuing predators. Are you suggesting that if we replace "derived" with "influenced by", his assertion would make more sense?

[JimC]

However, in the quote "moral, ethical and even aesthetic values in our societies are derived from our evolutionary development", if we changed "derived from" to "influenced by". there is nothing controversial or alarming in such a broad statement.

What's the difference? Sam Harris gave a TED talk a few years back, which tied in quite handily with his soon to be published book on the subject of, among other things, aesthetics. At one stage he claimed that we appreciate paintings of wooded mountains, lakes and trees with clear two metre trunks from an aesthetic point of view because wooded mountains are great for hunting, water is essential for survival and those trees are ideal for climbing up to escape from pursuing predators. Are you suggesting that if we replace "derived" with "influenced by", his assertion would make more sense?

It is an assertion that is difficult to prove, but none the less quite plausible, although he is pushing it by being overly specific. The aesthetic element is perhaps the more speculative and least important components of evolutionary psychology.

However, the ethical and moral elements are vastly more important. Our evolution within small groups of hunter-gathers with a premium on co-operation, but with a constant background of competition illuminates human emotions such as aggression and jealousy. None of this gives us ethical recipes for living well, but it provides a rational background for developing them. Or would you prefer original sin?

[Hermit]

However, in the quote "moral, ethical and even aesthetic values in our societies are derived from our evolutionary development", if we changed "derived from" to "influenced by". there is nothing controversial or alarming in such a broad statement.

What's the difference? Sam Harris gave a TED talk a few years back, which tied in quite handily with his soon to be published book on the subject of, among other things, aesthetics. At one stage he claimed that we appreciate paintings of wooded mountains, lakes and trees with clear two metre trunks from an aesthetic point of view because wooded mountains are great for hunting, water is essential for survival and those trees are ideal for climbing up to escape from pursuing predators. Are you suggesting that if we replace "derived" with "influenced by", his assertion would make more sense?

It is an assertion that is difficult to prove, but none the less quite plausible, although he is pushing it by being overly specific. The aesthetic element is perhaps the more speculative and least important components of evolutionary psychology.

However, the ethical and moral elements are vastly more important. Our evolution within small groups of hunter-gathers with a premium on co-operation, but with a constant background of competition illuminates human emotions such as aggression and jealousy. None of this gives us ethical recipes for living well, but it provides a rational background for developing them. Or would you prefer original sin?

Yes, the assertion is difficult to prove or disprove. However, evolutionary psychology explains nothing. It is about as useful as defining a building as nothing more than its raw materials. Of course not a single one of our behaviour patterns would even exist if we had not evolved to become the physical and sensory beings that we are now, but how does that explain the varieties of ethics and morals that we are capable of? The behaviour engendered by evolution is limited to not a lot more than to eat, shit, sleep, fuck, fight, flinch, and flee. How do you explain both Rupert Murdoch and Mahatma Gandhi in terms of evolutionary psychology? Ernst Mengele and Marie Curie? Ada Lovelace and Miranda Barbour?

Oh, and asking me to choose between a rational background and original sin is a bit cheeky, don't you think?

[mistermack]

I don't get what you've got against evolutionary psychology.
If people are claiming that it explains all, then I could see the point. All psychologist and psychiatrists over claim, hugely. But that's their fault, not the fault of the field of study.

If evolutionary psychology, as a collective of all those who support the viewpoint, collectively over claim, than that still doesn't rule out the fact that it's a helpful insight into human behaviour.

You say, how does it explain the variety of ethics and morals etc...
Well, it doesn't. But it can provide the basis for a start in understanding it all.

The behaviour engendered by evolution is limited to not a lot more than to eat, shit, sleep, fuck, fight, flinch, and flee.

To me, that's entirely wrong. I would say that ALL behaviour is engendered by evolution.
That doesn't mean that it's all fully EXPLAINED by evolution. Engendered by evolution means that evolution gave birth to the individual, and formed the brain, but life experience including the culture that the individual grows up in, provides the software.

But a human baby has far more programming at birth, than just the ability to eat, shit, sleep, fuck, fight, flinch, and flee. They are born with characters. Ask any parent. Some are selfish, some are generous, some are foolhardy, some are completely fearless. Some are gay. Some are straight.
Some are musical. Some are completely tone deaf, or have no sense of rhythm at all.
There is a huge list of things that people are born with, and those that aren't can never develop those skills.

As far as ethics and morals go, it's a combination of evolution and life experiences. Not one or the other. Evolution gave us a huge brain, compared to Chimpanzees. But Chimpanzees are capable of making ethical and moral judgments, and they do all the time.

We can think it out, and put it into words, but that is largely due to evolution, which gave us so much brain-power, and the enlarged broca's area (I think) which give us the language potential to put our enhanced reasoning into words.

Chimpanzees could never develop the more nuanced morals, and even if they could, they could never discuss them with others, without the part of the brain that enables language.

So if you want to explain everything, you're onto a loser with evolution. But you're onto a loser with everything. Human behaviour is too complicated and unpredictable to explain.
But you can look to evolution for an explanation of some common trends, that we all share.

[Mr.Samsa]

Hermit wrote:

Also: Fuck evolutionary psychology/behaviourism/whatever. It's the biggest crock of shit after theism, fascism and lolbertardianism.

A bad case of throwing a perfectly healthy baby out with the bath water, as well as lumping lumping evolutionary psychology with the diametrically opposed position of behaviourism, the ultimate believer in a squeaky clean slate...

This is a common misconception. There has never been a blank slate position in behaviorism. I mean, the movement was started by an ethologist who specialised in studying innate behaviors, and dedicated two chapters of his book "Behaviorism" to the importance of instincts.