Homo Sapians: Part of Nature or Above it

[heretic888]

Gawd. What a mouthful, neh? :uhyeah:

For those that don't feel like perusing through that list of quotes and retorts, here are some basic criticisms I have of this material reductionism:

1) Self-contradictory: This is one of the major criticisms, and it ends up applying to most forms of reductionism. Namely, the system claims for itself what it denies to all others. In this particular instance (upnorthkyosa's "biophysical reductionism"), it is claimed that all supposedly "non-physical" or subjective phenomena are, in fact, illusory/hallucinatory side-effects of biological processes. The problem, of course, is that the entire philosophy of reductionism is itself a non-physical entity --- its an idea. Thus, by its very own standards, reductionism has no valid reality; it is a hallucinatory side-effect of dopamine or whatnot. The problem is further counfounded when things like hypotheses, theories, logic, mathematics, and the scientific method are seen as having "no validity" either, which is a natural consequence of the system --- since every single one of them is an immaterial, subjective tool or phenomena.

The point is, by its own criteria, reductionism itself has no validity, no reality. Its a self-contradicting system.

2) Anti-scientific: This is another major criticism. Reductionism claims to have science in its corner (even though, by its own standards, science doesn't really "exist" --- see Point 1), and yet, this seems untenable. All the scientific method really is is direct observation and validation taken to their logical finality. Since subjective "I"-ness is the most pervasive and perennial observation/datum that human beings have ever made, and since we observe all other phenomena through our subjective selves, one can hardly claim to being scientific/empirical when denying all subjective phenomena.

3) Untestable: This kinda goes with Point 2. The entire basis for reductionism is the proposition of negative claims --- there is no God, there is no Spirit, there is no mind, there is no soul, there is no "I" (subject). The problem, of course, is that none of those claims can be tested, or proven. Absolutely no evidence can be provided to "disprove" the existence of mind. Thus, the entire foundation of this system is blind faith. Its essentially a religion --- scientism, not science.

4) Inexplicable: Another deep contestion of reductionism --- it just can't explain how stuff, well, happens. How did "something" come out of "nothing", as with the Big Bang?? How do strings create quarks?? How do quarks create protons?? How do protons create atoms?? How do atoms create molecules?? How did molecules create life, beginning with prokaryotic bacterium?? If natural selection is the name of the game, why have all subsequent life forms been less-adapted than prokaryotes?? How did self-reflexive, conscious organisms (i.e., us) come out of those that were not?? How exactly do things like love, pain, pleasure, hate, awareness, and memory really come from organic brains?? How do we really explain genuine novelty in the universe??

The reductionist has no satisfactory answer to any of these questions, other than the equally blind faith-y "we'll figure it out one day!!".

5) A Theory of Everything: This is probably the most annoying claim of all that the reductionist can make. Namely, that biology and/or physics will lead us to the Truth --- that if you want to know the mind, don't study psychology. Study biology. If you want to know what art "really is", don't learn to become an artist --- study biology. If you want to understand human culture, don't waste your time with anthropology and sociology. Study biology.

The self-inflated, grandiose claims are the giveaway here. Its just another way of saying "no one else is right but me!!", and similar logic was used by fundamentalists to explain away the fossil record as "diabolical mimicry".

6) Counter-intuitive: The deepest, and most underlying, objection to reductionism is simple. It contradicts everything we experience of life. It denies qualia, apparently for no other reason than it can't dissect it under a microscope. It treats human beings, and all other organisms, not as subjects in and of themselves, not as I's. But as objective its. It denies the existence of any sort of meaning or value.

This is not only counter-intuitive to what we experience out of life --- to many, it is also unfathomable and unacceptable.

Hope that cleans up my arguments some. Laterz. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh the joy of this discussion... This has been a lot of fun, thanks!

1. Self-Contradictory - it is not self contradictory. Reductionism does not present a denial of meaning. Just because something is reduced to its parts and explained does not mean it has lost its specialness. I think you are painting with a overbroad brush and including parts of other things into reductionism. What does Robert say, oh yes, "Collapsing Catagories."

Here is a little tidbit I picked up in one of the books Robert suggested. It takes 80 generations for behavioral evolution to become genetic. Interesting. So the things we learned 8000 years ago are now part of the genetic plan for our minds? Wouldn't it follow then that mathematics, logic and other abstractions would also become part of that plan? Therefore, it follows that if they can be incorporated in the genetic plans for our brains then they are biological in origin which means they can be reduced to their parts.

2. Anti-Scientific - All the scientific method really is is direct observation and validation taken to their logical finality. This is reductionism. You take apart an object and find out how it works. You make predictions based on what you are able to accomplish and then you wait and see if new discoveries fit those predictions. I'm not seeing how this is anti-science.

3. Untestable - Switch directions...the mind, the spirit, and God. If they exist there must be evidence for their existance. That is a scientific/reductionistic approach. Saying that reductionism posits that none of the above exists is a mischaracterization. I don't think any scientist would claim that the above doesn't exist on some level at least. The difference between science and religion is direction. According to Hopper, science is deductive. It goes from the evidence to the theory. Religion is inductive, moving from theory to the evidence. You have not shown here how reductionism is scientism.

4. Inexplicable - Another deep contestion of reductionism --- it just can't explain how stuff, well, happens. How did "something" come out of "nothing", as with the Big Bang?? There are plenty of theories that explain this. M-theory for one. The evidence is mounting that this is correct. How do strings create quarks?? Strings don't create quarks. They create supersymmetric particles. How do quarks create protons?? We can make protons in the lab and this process is well documented. How do protons create atoms?? Again, this is something we can do in the lab. Recently a quark/gluon plasma has been prepared and protons condensed from this. How do atoms create molecules?? Seriously, are you kidding. Have you taken a chemistry class? How did molecules create life, beginning with prokaryotic bacterium?? Bubble Theory - the cyclic intergral assemblage of organic molecules. If natural selection is the name of the game, why have all subsequent life forms been less-adapted than prokaryotes?? Because they are not less adapted. They have adapted to take energy in new or more complex ways. How did self-reflexive, conscious organisms (i.e., us) come out of those that were not?? Are you assuming that other organisms are not concious to a certain extent? Perhaps it would help to think of different concious levels and then correllate this to frontal lobe size. How exactly do things like love, pain, pleasure, hate, awareness, and memory really come from organic brains?? They are chemicals whizzing in the synapses. There is an entire industry that focuses on creating these chemicals in induce these effects. The drug manufactuers have been successful with some, not all. My question to you, if we can create one, why not all? Or is there some special line that divides the special things from the things that we can create? How do we really explain genuine novelty in the universe?? Good Question.

So you see, nearly your entire list is perfectly explanable and backed up with observational data. Why do you keep insisting that it is not?

5. Theory of Everything - Take a good look at reality my friend. Biology is behind all of those things you mentioned. And I do think that people should study biology to better learn about those things. Not exclusively, but they should at least know how their biology shaped the things they study. I sense a lot of protectivism here. I sense that you like things compartmentalized and separate...that is not how the world works, though. Its all interconnected. Everything that we do comes from our biology - it starts with our biology. This does not mean that can become a great artist by studying biology only though. Biology will not teach me how to paint or do martial arts, but it will deepen my understanding of that art. It will make my art better because I understand how my body makes it happen.

6. Counter-intuitive - reductionism does not destroy meaning. Just because I can take apart my car and put it back together does not make it less important to me. Like-wise with a human, if I were able to take apart a human and put it together and preserve its life, does not make it less then what it is. Perhaps you need to redefine your definition of meaning. In my opinion meaning is about the connections, its about the impact, its about the place something fits in our lives. Reductionism does nothing to this definition.

 

[heretic888]

Oh the joy of this discussion... This has been a lot of fun, thanks!

No problemo.

Now, on to the discussion...

1. Self-Contradictory:

a) It is not self contradictory. Actually, yes it is. I also noticed this was one particular critique you did not bother to really address (as everything else you addressed in Point 1 are things I actually discussed in later points). Let's just re-evaluate this for a second...

Your physicalism (I'm going to try and avoid using the label 'reductionism' as you seem to have a tendency to collapse philosophical reductionism with the 'reductionistic' methodology used in the laboratory) claims that all subjective phenomena (such as feelings, awareness, mind, experience, qualia, and so on) have no valid, substantive reality in and of themselves; that they are all the products or side-effects of biophysical processes. Meaning, that the subject (I) doesn't really exist; only the object (it). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The self-contradictory part of this is that physicalism itself is a subjective phenomena --- it is a point-of-view, a theory, a philosophy, a way of looking at the world. Thus, by the very criteria that physicalism itself sets up, physicalism itself does not have any valid reality or claim to truth. To put it more succinctly ---- according to physicalism itself, physicalism is just a side-effect of biophysical processes in the brain. Now, can someone please explain to me how that is not self-contradictory??

This is similar to the "privileged position" that Robert made reference to in another thread. Namely, physicalism makes certain judgments about all philosophical/subjective points-of-view (that they are all "biology-in-disguise"), but then assumes a position of privilege whereby this criteria is magically not applied to itself. To put it in a sentence --- "All subjective viewpoints are merely side-effects of biological processes in the brain, EXCEPT for the subjective viewpoint that says this is so. For it is clearly the Truth, independent of the constraints of human biology." Again, how is this not self-contradictory??

b) Reductionism does not present a denial of meaning. Actually, yes it does. Last time I checked, "meaning" is not a biophysical object I can plop in front of a microscope. Thus, according to the criteria of physicalism itself, meaning does not and cannot exist. Its just neurons dancing about.

c) Just because something is reduced to its parts and explained does not mean it has lost its specialness. Sorry, but no. Going by that argument, I could murder your son, clone him the next day, artificially implant him with all the same memories, and he would be the "same person".

Unless, of course, there are "parts" to the individual that the hard sciences are having trouble picking up on --- which is really the crux of the objection here. It is not that you are reducing the individual entity to explainable "parts" (which, frankly, most philosophies do), but that you are denying the existence, or validity, of some of these "parts" in the first place (mind, awareness, subjectivity, qualia, etc.).

I have no problem with "reducing" the individual to an explainable subjective "part" and an explainable objective "part". I do have a problem when the physicalist claims that only the objective "part" is real.

d) It takes 80 generations for behavioral evolution to become genetic. Interesting. Yes, very. But its also a claim that would require evidence to be taken seriously, although I don't doubt its at least a likely possibility.

e) So the things we learned 8000 years ago are now part of the genetic plan for our minds? Wouldn't it follow then that mathematics, logic and other abstractions would also become part of that plan? Nope. I'm afraid you're collapsing categories again. Don't think that just because the word "evolution" is used, that it exclusively refers to biophysical changes --- psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists all utilize evolutionary principles, as well. Quite often, I might add.

In any event, nowhere in any gene (I'm going to assume this is what you meant by "genetic") have we found anything even remotely resembling qualia --- no emotion, no thoughts, no memories, no experience, nothing of the sort. Now, we may have discovered the objective correlate that grounds those subjective qualia --- but that is a far cry from objectively discovering those qualia in and of themselves.

Also, unlike biophysical evolution, not all subjective lines of evolution have reached the same point in all humans. Every human being has a complex neocortex and all the parts we associate with the higher brain. Not all humans, however, fully engage in rational thought or the like (Piaget's formal-operational stage). Thus, there is clearly a correlation between the organic brain and subjective consciousness ---- but one cannot be reduced to the other, as not everyone with a human brain has subjectivey realized the same qualia.

As Robert pointed out before, the human brain has been fundamentally unchanged (more or less) for the better part of 10,000 years. There have been some changes, of course, but nothing that would quantify an actual evolutionary adaptation (comparable to, say, the development of a complex neocortex among humans some millenia ago --- as opposed to a few more neuronal pathways and connections). Yet, virtually everything else about us --- our cultural values/worldviews, our levels of cognition, our technology, and even our socioeconomic modes of production --- has evolved substantially in that time. But, still, our brains are pretty much the same now as they were 6,000 years ago. Clearly, there is more to mind and subjectivity that neuronal tissue.

2. Anti-Scientific:

a) This is reductionism. You take apart an object and find out how it works. You make predictions based on what you are able to accomplish and then you wait and see if new discoveries fit those predictions. Bah, collapsing categories again. This is why I stopped using 'reductionism' in place of 'physicalism'. You are collapsing philosophical reductionism/materialism with the reductionistic methodology used in the laboratory. They are not the same. The laboratory 'reductionist' does not assume that an object has no subjective qualia, as the physicalist does. Nor does the laboratory 'reductionist' collapse correlation and causation, as the physicalist does.

b) I'm not seeing how this is anti-science. Laboratory reductionism/discrimination is not, but your physicalism is. As to how, its quite simple: physicalism denies the validity and reality of the most pervasive, perennial, univerally-observed human experience there is --- your own awareness. Denying empirical observations is the epitome of anti-science. On top of this, we don't even observe those phenomena you think really are valid (neurons, synpases, neurotransmitters, etc) except through our own subjective filters. Thus, its rather disengenous to claim that subjectivity is "not really real" based solely on observations made through that subjectivity.

It could also be mentioned that the entire philosophy itself pretty much smacks the scientific method right in the face. Read some of Thomas Kuhn's work concerning the use of scientific "paragidms", and how all scientific injunctions are sociocultural practices (i.e., it is intimately connected with subjective and intersubjective values and perceptions of its environment). I also refer you to the "myth of the given", which you've pretty much been buying into this whole time. There's a reason its called a myth --- namely, its the idea that the objective world exists pristinely "out there" for us to perceive directly, without filtration, as opposed to being intimately influenced and shaped by our subjective perceptions (and vice-versa).

Both extreme objectivism and extreme subjectivism are dead ends.

3. Untestable:

a) Switch directions...the mind, the spirit, and God. If they exist there must be evidence for their existance. That is a scientific/reductionistic approach. Ummm.... that's nice and all, but its not really the point. The point is that physicalism bases its philosophy on the proposition of negatives, claims which can never be tested. We aren't talking about the validity of interactionism, theism, idealism, or what-not --- we're talking about the validity of physicalism; you don't prove your position by attacking the competition. "Switching directions", as you put it, is a diversionary tactic that tries to hide this fact. The simple, raw truth is that the physicalist makes claims he cannot back up --- the burden of proof is on him, not his critics.

To put it succinctly --- if you're going to pass physicalism off as a valid philosophy, then you need to prove that mind actually does not exist. Its not up to me, the critic, to prove that mind does really exist, because the burden of proof is not mine. This the physicalist cannot do.

And also, as a side note, we have just as much "evidence" for the existence of mind as we do for the existence of matter (if not more). We directly experience both, as well as their interactions. You can't say one is "disproven" without invalidating the other.

b) Saying that reductionism posits that none of the above exists is a mischaracterization. I don't think any scientist would claim that the above doesn't exist on some level at least. Okay --- so, now you're saying that mind, subjectivity, and qualia really do exist, and have subsantive reality (thus invalidating physicalism/materialism)?? You need to make up your mind here, as you seem to be hopping around all over the place here.

c) The difference between science and religion is direction. According to Hopper, science is deductive. It goes from the evidence to the theory. Religion is inductive, moving from theory to the evidence. You have not shown here how reductionism is scientism. Probably because you haven't been talking about philosophical reductionism, as opposed to reductionist methodology. Please stop collapsing concepts here, or we'll be going around in circles forever.

And, also, scientism itself seems to be quite "religious", based on the above criteria.

4. Inexplicable:

a) Chemistry lesson: I'm not really going to press this point, as it really isn't that fundamental of a critique. However, the point I was trying to make is that physicalism is utterly incapable of explaining genuine novelty in the universe --- a very severe handicap. This you seemed to have agreed with me on, with your remark of "good question".

b)Are you assuming that other organisms are not concious to a certain extent? Perhaps it would help to think of different concious levels and then correllate this to frontal lobe size. Nope, never said other organisms are not conscious --- I believe every object is also a subject, and just as there are levels of objective complexity there are correlative levels of subjective complexity. Thus, you seem to be here agreeing with interactionism, not physicalism.

Although, personally, I would not correlate consciousness levels with frontal lobe size. There are rather specific subjective holons that are correlated with rather specific objective holons. For example: the objective limbic system is correlated with the subjective emotion, the objective simple neocortex is correlated with the subjective concept, and higher, objective structures that are more difficult to exactly pin down are correlated with higher subjective functions like preop, conop, formop, postformal, and so on.

c) How exactly do things like love, pain, pleasure, hate, awareness, and memory really come from organic brains?? They are chemicals whizzing in the synapses. Prove it. Prove that those chemical changes are actually causative, as opposed to being merely correlative. Prove that we are not collapsing concepts here.

5. Theory of Everything:

a) Take a good look at reality my friend. Biology is behind all of those things you mentioned. True enough, but there is a world of difference between biology being "behind" subjectivity or "underlining" subjectivity or "influencing" subjectivity --- as opposed to subjectivity being nothing but biology, which is what physicalism claims. Once again, I suggest you actually concretize your position on the matter, as you seem to be hopping all about again.

I suggest you yourself take a good look at reality, my friend. How can objective phenomena be understood without their relation to subjective phenomena?? "Up" and "down" have no meaning, no coherence, without the other. How can we even observe objective phenomena independently of subjective phenomena?? We all see the world through our own personal filters, after all. And relativity theory, as well as postmodern structuralism, seems to be testament of this.

Again, extreme objectivism (with its silly and hypocritical "myth of the given") is just as much a dead end as extreme subjectivism (with its silly and hypocritical "relativism"). Both are merely partial truths.

b) I sense a lot of protectivism here. Nah, sorry. What you may sense is a lot of sanity here.

C'mon, now. The entire notion that any one science or discipline has some kind of exclusive, supreme angle on the Truth is inane and ridiculous. What would you think if artists started telling biologists what their studies were "really about"?? Or anthropologists saying how all science is "culturally relative"?? Or psychologists going around with silly things about the cognitive and subjective underpinnings of biology --- to the point that they reduced all hard science to nothing but cognitive disaffections??

Its a dead end both ways.

c) I sense that you like things compartmentalized and separate...that is not how the world works, though. Its all interconnected. Everything that we do comes from our biology - it starts with our biology. Well, then you sense wrong. The underlying problem here, kyosa, is that you have a tendency to collapse concepts again --- saying subjective phenomena and objective phenomena are related, or connected, is not the same thing as saying all subjective phenomena are "just" objective stuff gone awry. I agree with former, not the latter.

I would actually refer you to the Four Quadrant model of Ken Wilber. It is very useful, in my opinion, of demonstrating the correlation of various subjective and objective spheres (while not making the mistake of attempting to reduce one to the other).

6. Counter-intuitive:

a) Reductionism does not destroy meaning. Yes, physicalism "destroys" meaning. Meaning is a subjective, internal phenomena. Thus, according to the criteria of philosophical reductionism, materialism, scientism, and physicalism (different words for the same thing, really), it has no valid or substantive reality. It is, at best, a surivival gimmick or a hallucination (similar to "God").

b) Just because I can take apart my car and put it back together does not make it less important to me. Like-wise with a human, if I were able to take apart a human and put it together and preserve its life, does not make it less then what it is. Oh, then you'll have no problem if kill your son, clone him, and speed up his growth to the point where he was when he died. After all, that's "all" he is, right??

c) Perhaps you need to redefine your definition of meaning. In my opinion meaning is about the connections, its about the impact, its about the place something fits in our lives. Reductionism does nothing to this definition. Sorry, but it does. You have a rather intricate and complicated definition there, but its still subjective values and phenomena, all the same. And, according to philosophical reductionism, that's all just frisky neurons going off in your brain --- with no actual cognitive validity itself.

On a final note, upnorthkyosa, I suggest you stop collapsing categories and actually explicitly put forth your position on the relation of subjectivity and objectivity. Biology "influencing" mind, and biology "being" mind are not the same thing. Nor are reductionistic materialism (a philosophy) and reducionistic empirical method (a scientific tool) the same thing. Nor, yet again, are causation and correlation the same thing.

Part of the problem here is that you're dancing all over the place, with no really coherent or stabilizing position. This makes the discussion a bit difficult to progress.

See you soon. Laterz. :asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Wow.

I am not going to get into the nitty-gritty of the back and forth that has been developing in this thread - rather, I would like to contribute my perspective as a longtime student of studying animal behavior, evolution, and development.

Although we as people seem to LOVE dichotomies, and swoon over them, virtually all scientists agree that the "nature-nurture" debate is ridiculous. You cannot have one without the other. This is tangentially related to the initial post here. Our "nature" (or biology) cannot be disentangled from our "nurture" (culture, and more specific individual development). Furthermore, discussing one without the other is meaningless.

To get to what I think is the kernel of the question, "Can humans rise above what one might consider their 'basic drives' or 'instincts'?" Yes, there are plenty of examples of that every day. There are also plenty of examples, however, of nonhuman animals doing the same thing. I'm not saying you will easily observe (or observe at all) a bullfrog demonstrating that he will not out-sing a rival male for some other reason. He will go sing (croak) his little heart out. But in other species, particularly social species, individuals must often manoeuver around conspecifics in order to maintain the social order, not get whomped, etc. Why do submissive wolves wait for the alpha pair to finish eating at a kill? I'm sure they are hungry, but they understand that they must wait. However, when a subordinate is ready to make the move and challenge the alpha, he or she will.

As an interesting book directly related to this topic, I certainly recommend Frans de Waal's "The Ape and the Sushi Master", where Dr. de Waal addresses the issue of "biology versus culture", and how for humans (and other species), the two are intertwined. Our biology reflects and supports our social and cultural "nature", so to speak.

And please don't get me started on Evolutionary Psychology, 90% of the field is scientific b***s**t.

 

[Makalakumu]

And please don't get me started on Evolutionary Psychology, 90% of the field is scientific b***s**t.

Please Elaborate...this could be an interesting point/counter point to this discussion. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

On a final note, upnorthkyosa, I suggest you stop collapsing categories and actually explicitly put forth your position on the relation of subjectivity and objectivity. Biology "influencing" mind, and biology "being" mind are not the same thing. Nor are reductionistic materialism (a philosophy) and reducionistic empirical method (a scientific tool) the same thing. Nor, yet again, are causation and correlation the same thing.

Part of the problem here is that you're dancing all over the place, with no really coherent or stabilizing position. This makes the discussion a bit difficult to progress.

I'll grant that I may be jumping over lots of fields here and I may not have presented a point of view that is easily catagorized. Consider this, though, I attempt to think out of the box, which doesn't always work and I find myself in a box that others have already made, but sometimes I actually do make it out. Maybe that is the case. Anyway...I'm okay with being confused. It means that my mind is not static and that, at the very least, I am thinking.

Lets see if I can do this without contradicting myself...

Subjectivity is the property of the objective from the point of view outside of the objective. Every object can also be a subject. I'm not seeing the connection where this affects my assertion that the mind is biologic and nothing more. So, I'll just charge ahead, its just what I do...

I see the mind as in incredibly complex peice of machinery operating in ways that we just don't have the technology to understand. Does this mean that we will come to the brink of the unknowable? I would wager that it doesn't. In fact, the signs are pointing in the direction that we can know how the mind works. As our knowledge base grows, we are able to pinpoint more and more about the workings of the brain. And if we know how the peices work, doesn't that amputate the MORE part of the mind?

One of the biggest problems I can see with your arguments is that you are drawing lines between what we can know and what we can't know. You claim that the knowledge on one side of the line, is MORE somehow then its parts. This, like I said before, is very reminiscent of the God of the Gaps argument in which theologens argue that God exists the spaces that are unknown. I think this is a trap Heretic888. You're going to go through life and see the unknown world shrink and that MORE that you defend, will become less and less. The simple fact remains that we are figuring out how the universe works. We are discovering the laws for the parts that make us who we are. Your personality, your creativity, the things you do on a regular basis are recorded in the whirring of these parts.

I'll grant that the originality of those arrangements is not something that we are even close to unraveling and may not ever. The seemingly random connections that make us different might not be so random - which is one of my justifications for spiritual practice. If there ever was a MORE, I would say that it lies here. As a counterpoint, though, I just want to point out the fact that not even a vacuum is empty. Scientists have observed particles that apparent "pop" into existance and "pop" back into non-existance seemingly violating the laws of conservation. There just is a lot that we don't know because our minds and technology is so primitive when compared to the complexity of the universe, so you'll just have to excuse my gross assumption. Seeing something popping out of nothing sure sounds like observing originality occuring. The ramifications of this are absolutely staggering...

Again, thanks for the discussion :asian:

upnorthkyosa

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Your personality, your creativity, the things you do on a regular basis are recorded in the whirring of these parts.

Nope nope nope. "recorded", as in once you do something, it's likely to be in your muscle memory or in your cognitive memory, OK. But "recorded" in "it's located in your parts before it happens, and you can see it if you just look for it", no. In more and more fields, the *emergent* properties of systems are being noticed, and research is focusing on those aspects. Something really can be more than the sum of its parts, quite literally. An ant colony can function in ways that appear to be very cognizant, yet each "part" is doing a simple task, following basic rules of behavior.

What would you like to talk about in terms of Evolutionary Psychology, upnorthkyosa? It is extemely difficult to do solid Ev. Psych. research. Most of the field is riddled with "Just So Stories" and reifications of perceived traits in modern humans.

Example: a study purports to examine aggression in humans. This study specifically examines, say, schoolground behavior in children. (I'll stay away from the example most guys will give - men fighting over the right to "court" (ha ha) a woman) The researchers observe children and record how many times boys come into physical contact in aggressive ways, compared to girls (regardless of the target of their aggression). The researchers gather their data, and conclude: boys are more physically aggressive than girls. THEREFORE, young males are getting ready to physically compete with one another for females (as they get closer to breeding age), and this is a trait which, of course, has been selected for.

Aside from the fact that such an interpretation is flawed (what other kinds of aggression do kids display aside from gross pushing and shoving? Do some kids actually beat each other up away from the playground, when researchers are not watching them? Does it count if two sisters, or a sister and brother fight a lot at home?) (it is over-generalized).... Most Ev. Psychologists are adaptationists to the extreme. Meaning, *everything* about us *must* be an adaptation.

That is ridiculous, frankly. There are adaptations. There are exaptations. There are traits that we may simply have because they have not been selected *against* yet. Just because a person does something - for instance, a serial killer knocking off victims, or a nun taking care of homeless people - does not mean that it is adaptive, or an adaptation. The error of most of Evolutionary psychology is in assuming a trait, or something that likewise must be operationally defined in a complex manner, is an adaptation.

It is difficult to marshall one's evidence to demonstrate that something *is* an adaptation. But it's an important, important step. Otherwise people are just telling (often poorly researched, often overgeneralized) Just So Stories. And that's not science.

But it is a pet peeve of mine, can you tell?

:ninja: Arrr! Science ninja! (lol)

I'd be happy to find the title of a book one of my former professors should be publishing, if it's not already out. It's an excellent example of what well-done evolutionary psychology should be, and critiques crappy ev. psych in it. And everyone will run out and read it, of course - the topic is the evolution of female orgasm. LOTS of people have come up with all sorts of stories for "why" human women can orgasm. Almost all of them are ...really, quite strange. And don't hold up to examination.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'd be happy to find the title of a book one of my former professors should be publishing, if it's not already out. It's an excellent example of what well-done evolutionary psychology should be, and critiques crappy ev. psych in it. And everyone will run out and read it, of course - the topic is the evolution of female orgasm. LOTS of people have come up with all sorts of stories for "why" human women can orgasm. Almost all of them are ...really, quite strange. And don't hold up to examination.

Is this really that important, Feisty Mouse? I'd rather see a study designed to explain why they FAKE it.

Not that this has ever been an issue with me, of course.

Really. I swear.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

The problem, again, with the above argument is this drawing of lines between what we can know and cannot know. Like I said before, this is going to end up being a trap. Where do you put this line? And when the line is crossed, where do you redraw it? And when that line is crossed again...see where this is going. The gap gets smaller and God shrinks by infantesimal amounts until God is contained in only smallest of peices...and then none at all.

I know you didn't bring God into the picture and we don't need to talk about him at all in this context. I am talking about the God of the Gaps argument though. The special, the more, the unknown gets smaller everyday and our world gets larger and larger as we are able to explain more and more things. I think of the things that we do now and wonder what a person 1000 years ago would think. For instance, if I said that I could detect the fires of creation with a ruby, some lightning, and a bit of loadstone and then proceeded to do so, it would be taken as deep necromancy. With that being said, what will the technology be like 1000 years in the future? 10,000 years? We can only imagine because it is, at most, conjecture.

Yet, I feel like we are babies in the universe. Our species is barely grasping out at the grossest of objects and we are realizing that this thing is gravid with complexity. I think the next scientific revolution with be an acknowledgement in how much we don't know.

Now, to specifically address some of your points. Ants. Eurosociality is an interaction between organisms in a population where the self is completely supplanted by the whole. Some scientists have looked at this whole and have said that it is more then its parts. I think the evidence is showing otherwise. For instance, any ant can become any other type of ant in the colony just by infusing them with the right chemicals. When a queen dies, a new queen can be made. The same can be said of any other type of ant in the colony except the drones. Those are males and their maleness is determined by genetics that we understand. They certainly do not qualify as something more, especially when the ants eat them during hard times...My point is this, there is a genetic map of every unit in every eurosocial organism and they know the whole because of this.

I agree that a lot of evolutionary psychology is a bit hokey. So are a lot of other types of psychology - Jungian for instance...In the end, I think evolutionary psychology is a revolutionary way of looking at the mind. It takes the magic and mysticism that plagues the field away and it puts it lays down the workings of the mind in terms that everyone can see and experiment upon. Some of the best research that I have read has come from the fields of Behavioral Evolution and Neuroscience. In my opinion, the mind is one of those things that we can see working and can interact with various observational instruments, but we just do not have the framework yet to even describe its organizational structure. When millions neurons discharge to type this sentance, you realize that the level of complexity is just too far beyond our grasp. Yet we can stop the thought from propagating by stopping that discharge, interupting those moving parts.

As far as the female orgasm goes, I've read that the contractions of the pelvic muscles and the arching of the back, dip the cervix of the uterus into a pool of semen. The pleasurable sensations and the release of dopamine in the brain is said to be an evolutionary incentive for a woman to copulate. The difficulty in acheving orgasm is said to be a selective mechanism, where only the most fit males can bring about the phenomenon during copulation. It is assumed, that this helps the woman acheive conception. This phycical process has been observed on camera with the tilting of the uterus actually dipping into the pooled semen. Of course, this would only work if the woman were copulating in a position where she were lying on her back...

Anyway, the point is that even the Mystery of Mysteries can be explained by science. What I want to know, is where the heck do they study this stuff and does the government pay for it? :asian:

upnorthkyosa

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Upnorth, that sounds a tad weak to me. Very few women achieve orgasm during coitus. Women have been getting pregnant without orgasm for centuries.

Feisty Mouse might disagree with this (I can't WAIT to hear what she has to say in this regard) but I'd be more inclined to think that the pertinent nerve endings influencing orgasm, like much of the female genitalia, correspond with a man's. The labia/scrotum, clitoris/penis, prostate/g-spot, etc. We are all phenotypically female at some stage of our development as embryos. Women do not go through those final stages of development that we men do...but they have that cursory structure that could have developed into male genitalia had something gone awry. I believe this is how hermaphoditism occurs.

Your theory also doesn't explain why women achieve orgasm within seconds of meeting me. This happens with about 20% of the women I encounter, and the others simply get breathless and flustered.

It happened in church once, to everyone's embarrassment. People played it off by pretending the woman was a Pentecostal having one of those ecstatic moments wherein they commune with The Spirit via zenoglossia and speak in tongues.

Given that it was a Greek Orthodox church, this didn't convince many.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As far as the female orgasm goes, I've read that the contractions of the pelvic muscles and the arching of the back, dip the cervix of the uterus into a pool of semen. The pleasurable sensations and the release of dopamine in the brain is said to be an evolutionary incentive for a woman to copulate. The difficulty in acheving orgasm is said to be a selective mechanism, where only the most fit males can bring about the phenomenon during copulation. It is assumed, that this helps the woman acheive conception. This phycical process has been observed on camera with the tilting of the uterus actually dipping into the pooled semen. Of course, this would only work if the woman were copulating in a position where she were lying on her back...

Debunked. Not the case. Not true. Most women a) do not orgasm from vaginal stimulation or vagainal stimulation alone b) the contractions of the uterus actually push matter (semen, whatever) OUT of the uterus and vagianl canal c) some women simply do not orgasm, regardless of the man they are with (wow, that's quite a male ego behind that statement - "the most fit males bring about (orgasm)", and it hasn't been shown at all) d) after copulation, most human females (and nonhuman female primates who physiologically can orgasm) do not lie on their backs after coitus but instead immediately get up and walk around.

Guess why women can possibly orgasm? Because we have to have the same biological, embryological basis that men do, and men need to orgasm to procreate. The clitoris (which is where the majority of women need to be stimulated to acheive orgasm) is the direct homologue of the penis. We have the wiring because men have the wiring, and we all start out the same in utero.

Good job, HHJH!!!

For instance, any ant can become any other type of ant in the colony just by infusing them with the right chemicals. When a queen dies, a new queen can be made. The same can be said of any other type of ant in the colony except the drones. Those are males and their maleness is determined by genetics that we understand. They certainly do not qualify as something more, especially when the ants eat them during hard times...My point is this, there is a genetic map of every unit in every eurosocial organism and they know the whole because of this.

You are missing the point I am trying to make. Just because we can explain a particular ant's chemical signalling or genetics, does not mean we can, from that, explain how a colony will respond in complex ways when, say, under attack from another colony, a predator, or in navigating through a forest. We understand individual ants, yes. But the group behavior "is not the sum of its parts"! Complex and sometimes unexpected behaviors happen that cannot be predicted from our understanding of each ant's individual rules of behavior.

I am not trying to get into the "god of gaps" argument or draw a line in the sand about what we can and cannot know. I think that the more we know, the less we know we know. I think we *can* find out amazing things about the world. But I would like to do it through rigorous science, not through crap like most of Evolutionary Psychology. It's not science. Adaptationist stories are not science, and their popularity makes it harder for people doing good science to get their results out, because the Just So Stories sound so...easy! So nice! Of course women orgasm! They are more fertile this way! Wrong. Women who may never orgasm in their lives during, after, or before vaginal intercourse can still have 10 children and 100 grandchildren.

In the end, I think evolutionary psychology is a revolutionary way of looking at the mind. It takes the magic and mysticism that plagues the field away and it puts it lays down the workings of the mind in terms that everyone can see and experiment upon.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Unless you are referring to old-school clinical (Jungian, Freudian) psychoanalysis, Psychology is amazingly pretty magic and mysticism free, when done by actual scientists and not quacks. Tell me how an evolutionary psychologist can run an experiment, by the way. Tell me how we can do a controlled, experimental manipulation which addresses the evolution of psychological traits, that doesn't fall into the adaptionist/Just So Stories trap, and that is a good experiment or series of experiments.

Most of the field of Psychology is moving towards cognitive psych, neuroscience, and development. But even with amazing discoveries being made, we still are realizing how complex things are. In part, I will continue to argue, it is because we are realizing how much of human development is not preprogrammed, but changes in each individual based on the very local environment.

Anyway, the point is that even the Mystery of Mysteries can be explained by science.

I'm sorry, I don't get that. And most reputable scientists will stay away from trying to prove or disprove someone's religious beliefs. They are both important systems of thought, but should not be pitted against one another.

Your theory also doesn't explain why women achieve orgasm within seconds of meeting me. This happens with about 20% of the women I encounter, and the others simply get breathless and flustered.

It happened in church once, to everyone's embarrassment. People played it off by pretending the woman was a Pentecostal having one of those ecstatic moments wherein they commune with The Spirit via zenoglossia and speak in tongues.

Given that it was a Greek Orthodox church, this didn't convince many.

HHJH, I am laughing my tushie off. Yes, the Orthodox are pretty quiet!

And one of the problems people had in trying to give adaptationist explanations for female orgasm for so long was the immense individual variation (or complete lack of the event) among individuals.

For such a variable and non-well-understood physiological activity, it's AMAZING how much time has been spent by different researchers to come up with lousy "explanations" for female orgasm.

Again, it just cracks me up. It's funny what people pick to study sometimes, and the explanations they come up with.

I'll have to dig out my notes for some of the older "explanations". Some of them were just bizarre.

 

[Makalakumu]

Steve - we should start a support group or something. I mean, walking down the street and having people all of the sudden fall down and moan...I thought it was because I smelled or something... :asian:

Anyways, lets stick to the female orgasm they was the Mystery of Mysteries that of which I was speaking. The morphology of the penis and clitorus are very analagous, I agree. But the contractions of the pelvic muscles DO NOT push fluids out of the cervix. You can see this happening in studies, heck they even showed a special with the footage on the Discovery Channel. I also disagree with the concept that something that has no use remains unchanged. If the orgasm is a vestigial reaction, shouldn't it be fading and weak? On the contrary, the difficulty currently experienced fits nicely into the vesigial model...I can't say anything more definitive on this matter. My knowledge of theory is weaker then my knowledge of details. :asian:

The point is that experiments in ev psych are inductive. People believe in evolution and believe that everything about are morphology and behavior is an adaptation. Then they go and look for evidence. Does this means its bad science, not neccessarily? It depends on how much evidence is collected before the jump to assumption is made. Question - how are neuroscience, congnitive science and developmental science - not related to evolution?

Lastly, our understanding of the complexity in our universe is infintile. You don't really get a handle on this until you study physics and attempt to understand the details that describe very simple things. With that being said, though, we have a long way to grow. As we learn more, the mystery shrinks. Why should be expect this to stop and why should we expect this to be any different then the study of physics where beautiful clockwork theories describe the motions of the planets and the motions of curveballs. An interesting step toward understanding more complex behavior in parts is complexity theory - formerly known as chaos theory. I think its a first step to showing how something complex can be measured by the interactions of its parts. For now its just an assumption and I'm just having fun speculating.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think that as we learn more, the mystery grows. The more we learn, the more we know we DON'T know, or can't explain it.

Although there are some nifty contractions of the vagina and uterus during female orgasm, there is actually a postive pressure in the uterus (this has been measured in clinical studies) - e.g. anything in the uterus is "encouraged to leave". This contradicts the popular "upsuck" theory, which claimed that there is negative pressure in the uterus, leading to aiding fertilization. Nope.

I also disagree with the concept that something that has no use remains unchanged. If the orgasm is a vestigial reaction, shouldn't it be fading and weak? On the contrary, the difficulty currently experienced fits nicely into the vesigial model...

It is NOT vestigal! The whole point is that is actively selected for ... in MEN. Men need to have orgasms to procreate. The reason women have the "equipment" that can allow an orgasm to happen is that men and women have the same "systems" with a little tweaking here and there. How does the difficulty of women having orgasms through vaginal penetration = a fading trait? Are you suggesting that in our past history, all women were incredibly orgasmic through vaginal penetration alone? Comparative studies would suggest that that is not the case, either.

People believe in evolution and believe that everything about are morphology and behavior is an adaptation. Then they go and look for evidence. Does this means its bad science, not neccessarily?

Not necessarily.... well, yes, actually. If I am looking for evidence to support a belief that everything is an adaptation, and do lousy or incomplete science to back up mybeliefs, then it is bad science.

You don't believe in evolution, you look at the evidence and establish whether or not it is a fact. You believe in religions, you bend your reasoning (both inductive and deductive) to science. I think the two are totally compatible, but if something isn't tested, then it remains in the large and fun world of Hypotheses Yet To Be Tested. There's a lot of good stuff there.

You don't really get a handle on this until you study physics and attempt to understand the details that describe very simple things.

I think anyone who would try to study how an infant learns to speak and make the leap to language would feel the same way. The universe is full of amazing things all the time. Our understanding is still so small, even though we have come so far.

Question - how are neuroscience, congnitive science and developmental science - not related to evolution?

I didn't say these aren't related to evolution. I'm saying that taking a strictly adaptationist stance - that EVERYTHING is an adaptation that was actively selected for - is flawed. Connecting evolutionary stories with what we know about human development or cognition can be done, but to do it well is difficult, and takes a deep understanding not only of how evolution works (most people don't take intensive classes on evolution and selection), but how to marshall comparative evidence, or run an experiment. You can either choose to run an evolutionary experiment with an organism that can go through millions of generations in a year or two in the lab, or you can gather experimental and comparative evidence - i.e. studies of other primates, and studies of humans in other cultures. Then you have the basis to start to make an argument about human evolution.

The burden of proof is, as always, on the researcher(s). If he or she or they do a lousy job to get to a neat-o conclusion, they should be blown out of the water by other scientists - since science is of itself, a social and culturally-based and biased pursuit and discipline.

Which is why I have to say that Evolutionary Psych, for the most part, is crap. Most of the folks in the field are devout strict adaptationists, and they get into pretty tautological arguments in their papers... I picked a trait of agression, I think it's an adaptation, I found a difference between boys and girls or different age groups, now I'm going to tell you why this is an adaptation! Wrong - there is no demonstration the trait in question is an adaptation to begin with. That's the hard part. Ittakes a lot of work, and even among a small group of research scientists, there are a lot of people who are lazy, who want to increase their publications and be famous, or who are just so in love with their ideas that they can't see what they are doing.

Again. why science is (ideally) a societal effort.

And I finally got the "mystery of mysteries" thing - lol - but now that it's not viewed as an adaptation, I hope that won't spoil your enjoyment of it!

I know that the women I know who know about this work still enjoy their own orgasms every bit as much as before. :boing2:

 

[heretic888]

Yikes. Quite a lot has been said. Ok, here's my take:

And please don't get me started on Evolutionary Psychology, 90% of the field is scientific b***s**t.

Don't know if this is response to something upnorthkyosa said, or something I said. But, for the record, I refer to developmental psychology more specifically for how human psyches develop and evolve over time.

I'll grant that I may be jumping over lots of fields here and I may not have presented a point of view that is easily catagorized. Consider this, though, I attempt to think out of the box, which doesn't always work and I find myself in a box that others have already made, but sometimes I actually do make it out. Maybe that is the case. Anyway...I'm okay with being confused. It means that my mind is not static and that, at the very least, I am thinking.

Ummmm... actually, that's not the case at all. You weren't "jumping over lots of fields", you were collapsing concepts into one another and not formulating a coherent position. Not distinguishing between "biology influences psychology" and "biology is psychology" is not being multi-disciplinary. Its being wishy-washy.

And, also, not differentiating between philosophical reductionism and reductionistic methodology is definately not being multi-disciplinary. Its being projectionistic, putting your philosophical beliefs onto a science that does not have them.

And, as for not differentiating causation and correlation?? Pssh... that's the worst of them all. An elementary mistake in science, one of the first things you learn not to do in psychology.

Subjectivity is the property of the objective from the point of view outside of the objective. Every object can also be a subject. I'm not seeing the connection where this affects my assertion that the mind is biologic and nothing more.

Because its inherently contradictory. Biology is not a subjective field, its an objective field. There are, of course, fields where the two interlap (such as anthropology or psychology), but biology is not one of them.

Chemicals are not subjective phenomena. Nor are neurons nor synapses nor neurotransmitters nor brainwaves. We experience all these objectively, "from the outside". Subjective phenomena are qualia --- they are emotions, ideas, thoughts, feelings, memories, experience, awareness, and consciousness. I cannot objectively "see" any of those "from the outside". The two domains (objective and subjective), while interconnected and interrelated, are ultimately irreducible to one another.

You also still have to explain how a subjective view that denies the validity of all subjective views could actually be "true". According to physicalism, the idea of physicalism itself is nothing but biological processes having fun and thus has no substantive reality itself. Thus, according to its very own premises, physicalism cannot possibly be a true idea because it is an idea.

You also have to explain how objective phenomena can actually exist without subjective phenomena. That's like saying all ups are true, but all downs are false. All hots are correct, all colds flawed. Its a completely incomprehensible position. Subjectivity and objectivity define one another, you cannot have the one without the other.

Then again, you have to further explain why you are basing your philosophy on such plainly inaccurate models of reality. Your arguments just scream "the myth of the given", "truth as correspondence", and "the representational model". Reality is not a perception, its an interpretation. And you can't do any interpreting without a subject.

I see the mind as in incredibly complex peice of machinery operating in ways that we just don't have the technology to understand. Does this mean that we will come to the brink of the unknowable? I would wager that it doesn't. In fact, the signs are pointing in the direction that we can know how the mind works. As our knowledge base grows, we are able to pinpoint more and more about the workings of the brain. And if we know how the peices work, doesn't that amputate the MORE part of the mind?

There's the problem, maty. You are talking about "mind" and "brain" as if they are interchangeable. They are not. They are intimately related, for sure, but one cannot be reduced to the other.

Neuroscience actually hasn't told us very much about how the "mind" works. Sure, it tells us about what brainwaves or neurotransmitters or synapses are at work in conjunction with certain subjective phenomena --- but I've never experienced a neurotransmitter in my thoughts, whereas I do experience memories, feelings, awarness, and qualia on a daily basis. So, you're gonna have to do better than that.

I suggest you actually look into what the influential philosophers and scientists supporting physicalism have to say on the matter --- they will gladly admit that we don't have a damn clue how "mind" can possibly issue forth from a physical organism.

And, throughout it all, I still don't see any justification for how all these biophysical processes are anything other than correlates. Correlation is not causation.

One of the biggest problems I can see with your arguments is that you are drawing lines between what we can know and what we can't know.

Nope. Never said that. What I did say was that certain methodologies and disciplines will never come to understand certain phenomena, which is true. There are other disciplines and methodologies for studying those phenomena --- which are not always the "hard sciences".

You claim that the knowledge on one side of the line, is MORE somehow then its parts. This, like I said before, is very reminiscent of the God of the Gaps argument in which theologens argue that God exists the spaces that are unknown. I think this is a trap Heretic888.

'Fraid you're playing the projectionist game here, dude. That's a sucka's game.

Dude, I will admit that a particular phenomena is "more" than its parts, only if you define the "parts" as reducible biophysical phenomena. If you include other "parts", then I won't make such a claim.

Besides, I notice you still can't explain how genuine novelty occurs in the universe, which is a rather damning hole in your philosophy.

You're going to go through life and see the unknown world shrink and that MORE that you defend, will become less and less. The simple fact remains that we are figuring out how the universe works. We are discovering the laws for the parts that make us who we are.

And I never claimed otherwise.

Your personality, your creativity, the things you do on a regular basis are recorded in the whirring of these parts.

Depends on which "parts" you are referring to. I have yet to see any hard scientist show me a microscopic slide of a memory or emotion, so you are on a slippery slide here to say the least.

I'll grant that the originality of those arrangements is not something that we are even close to unraveling and may not ever. The seemingly random connections that make us different might not be so random - which is one of my justifications for spiritual practice.

This was the point I was trying to bring up with the "creation of novelty" issue, although I don't think its proof or justification for anything. I think its interesting, to say the least, and provocative. But any "proof" for spiritual realities can only be found in spiritual methodologies, and vice versa.

Again, thanks for the discussion

No problemo.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

And please don't get me started on Evolutionary Psychology, 90% of the field is scientific b***s**t.

Don't know if this is response to something upnorthkyosa said, or something I said. But, for the record, I refer to developmental psychology more specifically for how human psyches develop and evolve over time.

I'll grant that I may be jumping over lots of fields here and I may not have presented a point of view that is easily catagorized. Consider this, though, I attempt to think out of the box, which doesn't always work and I find myself in a box that others have already made, but sometimes I actually do make it out. Maybe that is the case. Anyway...I'm okay with being confused. It means that my mind is not static and that, at the very least, I am thinking.

Ummmm... actually, that's not the case at all. You weren't "jumping over lots of fields", you were collapsing concepts into one another and not formulating a coherent position. Not distinguishing between "biology influences psychology" and "biology is psychology" is not being multi-disciplinary. Its being wishy-washy.

And, also, not differentiating between philosophical reductionism and reductionistic methodology is definately not being multi-disciplinary. Its being projectionistic, putting your philosophical beliefs onto a science that does not have them.

And, as for not differentiating causation and correlation?? Pssh... that's the worst of them all. An elementary mistake in science, one of the first things you learn not to do in psychology.

For the first part (which was something I had written)... bravo to you! I too would go to Developmental Psychology. I was trying to address (perhaps in a flippant and unclear way) the a field that falls prey to adaptationist beliefs and poor studies.

And for the second part - bless your heart, better stated than I could.

All of these posts have been very thought-provoking. (Now I must scamper back to my experiments like a good Mouse.)

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Steve - we should start a support group or something. I mean, walking down the street and having people all of the sudden fall down and moan...I thought it was because I smelled or something... :asian:

Uh...no. Sorry. Let me throw my degree into play and correct the grammar.

You STINK. They SMELL.

One must make a distinction between the verbs here.

What you're describing might be a seizure...unless they call upon a Deity.

If the orgasm is a vestigial reaction, shouldn't it be fading and weak?

Hell, I don't know. Maybe it won't be if you use the "butterfly flick?"

I tried to jump in here but honestly don't know jack about human development. I was a liberal arts guy...can you tell? You both purport to have some experience here...I mean in the sciences...not orgasm. Well, I assume you have experience in the latter, too, but that's not what I meant.

What is your training in this, if any? I mean in the science aspect of development....

Regards,

Steve

 

[heretic888]

For the first part (which was something I had written)... bravo to you! I too would go to Developmental Psychology. I was trying to address (perhaps in a flippant and unclear way) the a field that falls prey to adaptationist beliefs and poor studies.

And for the second part - bless your heart, better stated than I could.

All of these posts have been very thought-provoking. (Now I must scamper back to my experiments like a good Mouse.)

Thank ye kindly, sir. :asian:

May I ask, since you seem to be interested in developmental psyche, which particular theorists you would recommend and/or commend??

Laterz.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Hey HHJD

I'm a PhD student, finished with my coursework, with minors in Molecular Biology and Animal Behavior. The specific field I work in is Developmental Psychobiology.

No fancy degrees yet, but a lot of time and effort logged so far!

Or maybe a :jedi1: is more appropriate for the journey. lol

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Dang - I missed your post, heretic888!

May I ask, since you seem to be interested in developmental psyche, which particular theorists you would recommend and/or commend??

I would be absolutely delighted to put together a few things.

One relatively new idea floating out there in Developmental Psychology, which actually stems from or is inspired by work in Developmental Biology, is the Dynamic Systems Theory. Now, please note that I am biased because I have trained with one of the proponents of the theory, and admire her very much for her work.

Linda Smith and Esther Thelen have a book out on their theory of Dynamic systems. Interesting stuff, and it tried to address some of the emergent properties you sometimes find in systems. It's not necessarily a "light" read, though! lol

I would stay away from Stephen Pinker, he's got a lot of pop press books out that most developmental psych people can't STAND. And cognitive psychologists have fits when they hear his name.

So, you know, if you want to bait some cognitive people....

If you're interested in comparative work, Frans de Waal has several pop press books out that are accessible to just about anyone, but not "dumbed down" or anything.

Were you referring to kind of sticky stuff in the field, or more general names for popular press books? Sorry, I got a little carried away there. I enjoy theories that try to capture (or leave room for) both the nitty-gritty of specifics with an overall view. Which is hard to do.

Different approaches have yielded (obviously) different perspectives. I think anyone who keeps in mind the idea of multiple levels within and without an organism, affecting its development, is on the right track. (i.e. genes, organs, body chemistry, brain chemistry, organism, local family group, larger social group/community, etc).

Thank ye kindly, sir. :asian:

lol - you are more than welcome! But it's m'am. (or miss.) (well, really, both are kind of fusty. Maybe sir-eena? LOL!)

 

[heretic888]

lol - you are more than welcome! But it's m'am. (or miss.) (well, really, both are kind of fusty. Maybe sir-eena? LOL!)

LOL!! :boing2:

There goes me and my assumptions again. I guess that's the evil white patriarchy acting through me again (sorry, postmodernism is in the other thread, I know).

Were you referring to kind of sticky stuff in the field, or more general names for popular press books? Sorry, I got a little carried away there. I enjoy theories that try to capture (or leave room for) both the nitty-gritty of specifics with an overall view. Which is hard to do.

A bit of both, actually.

I first got interested in developmental psyche when I read some of Ken Wilber's works. He's more of what you'd call a syncretic philosopher (I guess), and tends to draw on the work of a LOT of theorists --- including Jean Piaget, Jenny Wade, Carol Gilligan, Jean Gebser, Jurgen Habermas, and Don Beck (not all developmental psychologists, I know, but...)

I was merely interested in furthering my study of the field.

Laterz. :asian: